This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-is-being-arbitrarily-detained-un-panel-finds-live-updates

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Julian Assange: UK to contest UN panel finding over ‘arbitrary detention’ – live updates Julian Assange: UK to contest UN panel finding over ‘arbitrary detention’ – live updates
(35 minutes later)
9.54am GMT
09:54
Sweden’s ministry for foreign affairs has released a three-page letter rejecting the panel’s findings.
Here are the key passages:
In its opinion, the Working Group considers that the current situation of Mr. Assange, staying within the confines of the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in the United Kingdom, has become a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty in contravention of international human rights obligations.
To begin with, the Government notes that one of the five members of the Working Group has expressed an individual dissenting opinion, arguing that Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest. According to the dissent, such premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group. In addition, it is contended that the Working Group is not competent to consider situations that do not involve deprivation of liberty and that issues related to fugitives’ self-confimement, such as asylum and extradition, do not fall into the mandate of the Working Group.
The Government does not agree with the assessment made by the majority of the Working Group. As elaborated in the Swedish Government’s communication to the Working Group, the main reasons for this are the following.
In light of the safeguards contained in the Swedish extradition and EAW procedures against any potential extradition in violation of international human rights agreements, the Government reiterates its position that Mr. Assange does not face a risk of refoulement contrary to international human rights obligations to the United States from Sweden. In any case, no request for extradition regarding Mr. Assange has been directed to Sweden. Moreover, Mr. Assange has chosen, voluntarily, to stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy and Swedish authorities have no control over his decision to stay there. Mr. Assange is free to leave the Embassy at any point. Thus, he is not being deprived of his liberty there due to any decision or action taken by the Swedish authorities. The Government therefore refutes the opinion by the Working Group that Sweden has violated articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Furthermore, in Sweden any decision regarding the preliminary investigation, for example regarding detention in absentia, is taken by independent judicial authorities. The Swedish Government may therefore not interfere in an ongoing case handled by a Swedish public authority. This follows from the Swedish Instrument of Government and basic principles of the rule of law. The Swedish Office of the Prosecutor and the courts are thus independent and separated from the Government.
As to the request by the Working Group that the Government of Sweden and the Government of the United Kingdom assess the situation of Mr. Assange (para. 100 of the opinion), it should be emphasised that regular contacts between the two countries take place, primarily in order to facilitate the preliminary investigation by the Swedish Office of the Prosecutor. It should also be pointed out that an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between Ecuador and Sweden entered into force on 22 December 2015.
It may finally be noted that the Government has transmitted the opinion of the Working Group to the Office of the Prosecutor and relevant courts, for their information.
9.43am GMT
09:43
Former British diplomat Craig Murray points out that Sweden and the UK are in dodgy company by challenging the UN panel.
In a blogpost he writes:
Julian Assange has never been charged with any offence. His detention has been unlawful since his very first arrest in the United Kingdom in 2010. There has never been any genuine attempt by the Swedish authorities to investigate the allegations against him. Those are the findings of the United Nations.
The UK and Swedish governments both participated fully, and at great expense to their taxpayers, in this UN process which is a mechanism that both recognise. States including Iran, Burma and Russia have released prisoners following determination by this UN panel, which consists not of politicians or diplomats but of some of the world’s most respected lawyers, who are not representing their national governments.
Countries who have ignored rulings by this UN panel are rare. No democracy has ever done so. Recent examples are Egypt and Uzbekistan. The UK is putting itself in pretty company.
It would be an act of extraordinary dereliction by the UK and Swedish governments to accept the authority of the tribunal, participate fully in the process, and then refuse to accept the outcome.
9.34am GMT
09:34
The UN is about to give a press briefing in Geneva on the panel’s findings. You can follow it here...
Watch: Live press briefing on the details of #Assange's arbitrary detention case https://t.co/JInciPe1QV @UNGeneva
Updated
at 9.37am GMT
9.30am GMT
09:30
Owen Bowcott
The Guardian legal affairs legal editor, Owen Bowcott has been going through the panel’s full report.
He points out that much of the criticism in it is directed at the methods adopted by the Swedish prosecutors.
The report states: “There has been a substantial failure to exercise due diligence on the part of the concerned states (Sweden and UK) with regard to the performance of the criminal administration....After more than five years’ of time lapse, [Assange] is still left even before the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence.
“Despite that it is left to the initial choice of the Swedish prosecution as to what mode of investigation would best suit the purpose of criminal justice, the exercise and implementation of the investigation method should be conducted in compliance with the rule of proportionality, including undertaking to explore alternative ways of administering justic”.
The dissenting panel member was the Ukrainian lawyer Vladimir Tochilovsky.
9.26am GMT
09:26
The UN’s high commission for human rights insists that the panel’s ruling is “legally binding”.
It put out this press release explaining the panel’s ruling.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London on 7 December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.
In a public statement, the expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation
Mr. Assange, detained first in prison then under house arrest, took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 after losing his appeal to the UK’s Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where a judicial investigation was initiated against him in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct. However, he was not formally charged.
“The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention,” said Seong-Phil Hong, who currently heads the expert panel.
“The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation,” Mr. Hong added.
In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.
The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
9.19am GMT9.19am GMT
09:1909:19
Sweden rejects panel's findingSweden rejects panel's finding
The Swedish governemnt has also rejected the panel’s finding. In a statement posted by BuzzFeed’s James Ball, it said:The Swedish governemnt has also rejected the panel’s finding. In a statement posted by BuzzFeed’s James Ball, it said:
“Mr Assange has chosen, voluntarily, to stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy and Swedish authorities have not control over his decision to stay there. Mr Assange is free to leave the Embassy at at any point. Thus, he is not being deprived of his liberty due to any decision or action taken by the Swedish authorities. The government there refutes the opinion of the working group.”“Mr Assange has chosen, voluntarily, to stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy and Swedish authorities have not control over his decision to stay there. Mr Assange is free to leave the Embassy at at any point. Thus, he is not being deprived of his liberty due to any decision or action taken by the Swedish authorities. The government there refutes the opinion of the working group.”
Sweden rejects the opinion of the UN panel on Assange's detention – below quote is from their ambassador to the UN pic.twitter.com/zs0yRkCSWsSweden rejects the opinion of the UN panel on Assange's detention – below quote is from their ambassador to the UN pic.twitter.com/zs0yRkCSWs
9.01am GMT9.01am GMT
09:0109:01
UK government to contest findingUK government to contest finding
The UK government has confirmed that it will formally contest the opinion of the UN panel.The UK government has confirmed that it will formally contest the opinion of the UN panel.
In a statement the Foreign Office said:In a statement the Foreign Office said:
“This changes nothing. We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. The UK has already made clear to the UN that we will formally contest the working group’s opinion.“This changes nothing. We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. The UK has already made clear to the UN that we will formally contest the working group’s opinion.
“Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK. The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy. An allegation of rape is still outstanding and a European Arrest Warrant in place, so the UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden. As the UK is not a party to the Caracas Convention, we do not recognise ‘diplomatic asylum’.“Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK. The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy. An allegation of rape is still outstanding and a European Arrest Warrant in place, so the UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden. As the UK is not a party to the Caracas Convention, we do not recognise ‘diplomatic asylum’.
“We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue. Ecuador must engage with Sweden in good faith to bring it to an end. Americas Minister Hugo Swire made this clear to the Ecuadorean Ambassador in November, and we continue to raise the matter in Quito.”“We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue. Ecuador must engage with Sweden in good faith to bring it to an end. Americas Minister Hugo Swire made this clear to the Ecuadorean Ambassador in November, and we continue to raise the matter in Quito.”
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.11am GMTat 9.11am GMT
8.59am GMT8.59am GMT
08:5908:59
James Ball, a former Wikileaks and Guardian staffer now at Buzzfeed, claims that the panel essentially ruled that Assange’s detention was “arbitrary” because of the time taken over his extradition case.James Ball, a former Wikileaks and Guardian staffer now at Buzzfeed, claims that the panel essentially ruled that Assange’s detention was “arbitrary” because of the time taken over his extradition case.
While neglecting to mention the reason for delay was a series of appeals Assange made (and was granted) up to supreme courtWhile neglecting to mention the reason for delay was a series of appeals Assange made (and was granted) up to supreme court
Lesson of this seems to be: delay an investigation into you long enough and the UN will find in your favour, because of that delayLesson of this seems to be: delay an investigation into you long enough and the UN will find in your favour, because of that delay
8.54am GMT8.54am GMT
08:5408:54
Free speech campaigners have been quick to welcome the UN panel’s finding.Free speech campaigners have been quick to welcome the UN panel’s finding.
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said:Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said:
“In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. Indeed, even the prolonged criminal investigation of Wikileaks itself has had a profound chilling effect. The Justice Department should end that investigation and make clear that no publisher will ever be prosecuted for the act of journalism.”“In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. Indeed, even the prolonged criminal investigation of Wikileaks itself has had a profound chilling effect. The Justice Department should end that investigation and make clear that no publisher will ever be prosecuted for the act of journalism.”
8.50am GMT8.50am GMT
08:5008:50
Owen BowcottOwen Bowcott
In its statement, the committee said that one of its members, Leigh Toomey, an Australian, had declined to take part in the inquiry because she is an Australian citizen, Owen Bowcott points outIn its statement, the committee said that one of its members, Leigh Toomey, an Australian, had declined to take part in the inquiry because she is an Australian citizen, Owen Bowcott points out
One of the other members had disagreed with the finding.One of the other members had disagreed with the finding.
The statement said: “Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.”The statement said: “Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.”
Only three of the five member panel therefore supported the finding against the UK and Sweden.Only three of the five member panel therefore supported the finding against the UK and Sweden.
8.46am GMT8.46am GMT
08:4608:46
Assange is due to give a press conference at noon to respond to the panel’s findings.Assange is due to give a press conference at noon to respond to the panel’s findings.
#Assange press conference (via Skype) with his lawyers @frontlineclub at 12pm following UN decision on arbitrary detention.#Assange press conference (via Skype) with his lawyers @frontlineclub at 12pm following UN decision on arbitrary detention.
8.45am GMT8.45am GMT
08:4508:45
The Guardian’s legal affairs editor Owen Bowcott points out that the UNWGAD findings have no binding impact on UK law and cannot overrule the court-sanctioned procedure for removing Assange, under a European arrest warrant, to face justice in Scandinavia.The Guardian’s legal affairs editor Owen Bowcott points out that the UNWGAD findings have no binding impact on UK law and cannot overrule the court-sanctioned procedure for removing Assange, under a European arrest warrant, to face justice in Scandinavia.
But in a Facebook video the UN’s Christophe Peschoux argues that the panels decisions are “indirectly but still legally binding on the relevant authorities”.But in a Facebook video the UN’s Christophe Peschoux argues that the panels decisions are “indirectly but still legally binding on the relevant authorities”.
8.33am GMT8.33am GMT
08:3308:33
Welcome to live coverage of the aftermath of a UN panel’s call on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”.Welcome to live coverage of the aftermath of a UN panel’s call on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”.
Here’s the full text of a statement by the UN’s working group on arbitrary detention.Here’s the full text of a statement by the UN’s working group on arbitrary detention.
On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation. The application was filed with the Working Group in September 2014. The Opinion 54/2015 was sent to the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 January 2016 in accordance with the Working Group’s Methods of Work.On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation. The application was filed with the Working Group in September 2014. The Opinion 54/2015 was sent to the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 January 2016 in accordance with the Working Group’s Methods of Work.
Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.
In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange’s fear that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police.In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange’s fear that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police.
The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work.The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work.
The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation.The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation.
Assange is expected to demand that Sweden and the UK lift any threat of arrest to allow him to walk free from Ecuador’s embassy in London.Assange is expected to demand that Sweden and the UK lift any threat of arrest to allow him to walk free from Ecuador’s embassy in London.
Assange has not set foot outside the cramped west London embassy building since June 2012, when he sought asylum from Ecuador in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden. The Australian is wanted for questioning over an allegation of rape dating to 2010, which he denies.Assange has not set foot outside the cramped west London embassy building since June 2012, when he sought asylum from Ecuador in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden. The Australian is wanted for questioning over an allegation of rape dating to 2010, which he denies.
Christophe Peschoux from the UN said the panel’s decisions were legally binding.Christophe Peschoux from the UN said the panel’s decisions were legally binding.
UpdatedUpdated
at 8.38am GMTat 8.38am GMT