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 5 Version 6
Julian Assange: UK to contest UN panel over ‘arbitrary detention’ – live updates Julian Assange makes statement after UN panel decision – live updates
(35 minutes later)
12.12pm GMT
12:12
Melinda Taylor says the finding affirms that Assange has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice. “He has been detained for five years, one month and 29 days,” she says.
“If you have no effective freedom, then you are detained ... yet Sweden and the UK refused to acknowledge that,” she added.
12.09pm GMT
12:09
Lawyer Jennifer Robinson described the finding as “resounding victory for Mr Assange”.
12.01pm GMT
12:01
The Frontline club press conference is about to get underway. Assange supporters are sitting in front of a big screen where the Wikileaks founder is expected to appear via Skype.
John Jones QC, Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzon will give presentations before Assange is due to appear.
Updated
at 12.04pm GMT
11.54am GMT
11:54
Downing Street has echoed Hammond’s line on the panel’s finding.
David Cameron’s spokesman said:
“It’s ridiculous. There’s a European arrest warrant out for him. He has never been arbitrarily detained in this country.
“It’s entirely his choice to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy and he is avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain there.”
11.51am GMT
11:51
The Guardian’s Esther Addley is in prime position for the Assange press conference at the Frontline club.
Hosting press conference with Julian Assange in response to UN legal panel ruling - live at https://t.co/CNtUg7cdTw pic.twitter.com/Bu31qm3t7x
#Assange expected to appear by video link at 12pm press conference. This is the scene with an hour to go.. pic.twitter.com/BeuANslal5
Updated
at 11.52am GMT
11.47am GMT
11:47
Here’s video of Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond describing the finding as “flawed in law” and “frankly ridiculous”.
11.44am GMT
11:44
Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, says his government will give its response at 7am local time (noon in the UK).
Ofreceré la reacción del Ecuador ante la Disposición del Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU en el caso #Assange. @teleSURtv 7h00; @CNNEE 7h30
11.38am GMT11.38am GMT
11:3811:38
The respected international lawyer, Philippe Sands, doesn’t think much of the panel’s finding.The respected international lawyer, Philippe Sands, doesn’t think much of the panel’s finding.
Have read the full WGAD #Assange report - poorly reasoned and unpersuasive. Not the UN’s finest day https://t.co/Wmq2YGHiBiHave read the full WGAD #Assange report - poorly reasoned and unpersuasive. Not the UN’s finest day https://t.co/Wmq2YGHiBi
Neither does the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg.Neither does the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg.
Excellent @guardian leader today on Assange. Reminds us he has broken bail conditions. https://t.co/PZLPPpV2ea And, no, I didn’t write it.Excellent @guardian leader today on Assange. Reminds us he has broken bail conditions. https://t.co/PZLPPpV2ea And, no, I didn’t write it.
11.35am GMT11.35am GMT
11:3511:35
The Daily Mash pokes fun at the panel’s finding.The Daily Mash pokes fun at the panel’s finding.
A Man who has been waiting for his Argos purchase for more than 15 minutes is being detained in violation of his human rights, the UN has ruled.A Man who has been waiting for his Argos purchase for more than 15 minutes is being detained in violation of his human rights, the UN has ruled.
Tom Logan was given his ticket for a Nespresso coffee machine at 9.46am, but is still confined within the store at 10.02am with no end to his ordeal in sight.Tom Logan was given his ticket for a Nespresso coffee machine at 9.46am, but is still confined within the store at 10.02am with no end to his ordeal in sight.
Variations on the same gag abound.Variations on the same gag abound.
UN demands compo too for Assange. I demand beer and curry from the Govt every time I'm forced to stay in and watch Sky SportsUN demands compo too for Assange. I demand beer and curry from the Govt every time I'm forced to stay in and watch Sky Sports
Remember when Ronnie Biggs was arbitrarily detained in Brazil for over 30 years? #assange @DavidAllenGreenRemember when Ronnie Biggs was arbitrarily detained in Brazil for over 30 years? #assange @DavidAllenGreen
11.28am GMT11.28am GMT
11:2811:28
Jessica ElgotJessica Elgot
Jessica Elgot reports live from press scrum at the Ecuadorian embassy:Jessica Elgot reports live from press scrum at the Ecuadorian embassy:
The backstreets of luxury apartments behind Harrods department store which look on to the front of the Ecuadorian embassy are once more crammed with the international press, two or three deep back from the kerb.The backstreets of luxury apartments behind Harrods department store which look on to the front of the Ecuadorian embassy are once more crammed with the international press, two or three deep back from the kerb.
Reporters are here from the US, Sweden, Australia, Germany and Russia, among others, hoping that Julian Assange may stride out for an impromptu speech from the famous balcony, though there is no indication that he will.Reporters are here from the US, Sweden, Australia, Germany and Russia, among others, hoping that Julian Assange may stride out for an impromptu speech from the famous balcony, though there is no indication that he will.
A police van moved to the front of the balcony in the last few hours, though police have not regularly been stationed here since the Met downgraded their operations at the Embassy last year, after the regular policing here had cost the taxpayer more than £12m.A police van moved to the front of the balcony in the last few hours, though police have not regularly been stationed here since the Met downgraded their operations at the Embassy last year, after the regular policing here had cost the taxpayer more than £12m.
Amongst the crowds of cameramen, around a dozen Assange supporters have been here throughout the morning.Amongst the crowds of cameramen, around a dozen Assange supporters have been here throughout the morning.
Jim Curran, a former railway engineer and WikiLeaks supporter, who has visited the embassy almost every day since Assange entered, said at one point the vigil had numbered 150, but people slowly drifted away.Jim Curran, a former railway engineer and WikiLeaks supporter, who has visited the embassy almost every day since Assange entered, said at one point the vigil had numbered 150, but people slowly drifted away.
Curran said he did not expect to see Assange appear today. “Many people wanted to be here, but they have jobs, students are at university, it’s not really surprising,” he said.Curran said he did not expect to see Assange appear today. “Many people wanted to be here, but they have jobs, students are at university, it’s not really surprising,” he said.
11.16am GMT11.16am GMT
11:1611:16
Assange’s barrister Geoffrey Robertson has urged the UK and Swedish authorities to abide by the panel’s finding.Assange’s barrister Geoffrey Robertson has urged the UK and Swedish authorities to abide by the panel’s finding.
Speaking to BBC News he said:Speaking to BBC News he said:
“Sweden has acted contrary to international law. Sweden is bound morally by this judgment so obviously in order to enforce it, Britain should get together with Sweden and find a way out. And perhaps compensate the Ecuadorians for putting up Julian Assange. That is the result of Britain’s commitment to international law.”“Sweden has acted contrary to international law. Sweden is bound morally by this judgment so obviously in order to enforce it, Britain should get together with Sweden and find a way out. And perhaps compensate the Ecuadorians for putting up Julian Assange. That is the result of Britain’s commitment to international law.”
11.08am GMT11.08am GMT
11:0811:08
Philip Hammond also dismissed the panel’s finding as “flawed in law”. Here’s audio of his statement:Philip Hammond also dismissed the panel’s finding as “flawed in law”. Here’s audio of his statement:
10.59am GMT10.59am GMT
10:5910:59
Jessica ElgotJessica Elgot
The Guardian’s Jessica Elgot has joined the media scrum outside the Ecuadorian embassy.The Guardian’s Jessica Elgot has joined the media scrum outside the Ecuadorian embassy.
Hundreds of press here outside Ecuadorian embassy from across the world, hoping for a peek of Assange pic.twitter.com/M5KSaJNLWQHundreds of press here outside Ecuadorian embassy from across the world, hoping for a peek of Assange pic.twitter.com/M5KSaJNLWQ
The police van has moved to just in front of the embassy balcony. Coppers were stationed round the corner yesterday pic.twitter.com/qZ7YWnUlOyThe police van has moved to just in front of the embassy balcony. Coppers were stationed round the corner yesterday pic.twitter.com/qZ7YWnUlOy
This is Jim Curran, who has visited the Embassy to support Assange almost every day. pic.twitter.com/E0vjeUop2TThis is Jim Curran, who has visited the Embassy to support Assange almost every day. pic.twitter.com/E0vjeUop2T
10.56am GMT10.56am GMT
10:5610:56
A Guardian editorial on the panel’s finding agrees with the Hammond’s assessment.A Guardian editorial on the panel’s finding agrees with the Hammond’s assessment.
It says the panel’s opinion is “simply wrong”:It says the panel’s opinion is “simply wrong”:
“[Assange] is not being detained arbitrarily. Three-and-a-half years ago, he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex offences. He had fought extradition through every court, and at each his case was rejected. “Arbitrary” detention means that due legal process has not been observed. It has. This is a publicity stunt.“[Assange] is not being detained arbitrarily. Three-and-a-half years ago, he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex offences. He had fought extradition through every court, and at each his case was rejected. “Arbitrary” detention means that due legal process has not been observed. It has. This is a publicity stunt.
It is possible to sympathise with his circumstances, and to applaud his role in the WikiLeaks revelations that exposed embarassing and sometimes illegal US activity that were published in the Guardian (while deploring his later decision to dump many more, unmediated, on the web) without accepting his right to evade prosecutors’ questions about the allegation that he committed a serious criminal offence.It is possible to sympathise with his circumstances, and to applaud his role in the WikiLeaks revelations that exposed embarassing and sometimes illegal US activity that were published in the Guardian (while deploring his later decision to dump many more, unmediated, on the web) without accepting his right to evade prosecutors’ questions about the allegation that he committed a serious criminal offence.
He has always argued that it is not the sex offence inquiries that he is avoiding, but extradition from Sweden to the US. Chelsea Manning, the soldier who originally downloaded the material and leaked it to Mr Assange, is serving a long sentence in military detention. There are indications that WikiLeaks is in the US justice department’s sights: it’s been confirmed that a grand jury is investigating; no indictment has been made public, but that does not mean there is none. Equally, the justice department could decide to make a distinction between government employees and military personnel who had a duty to protect classified information, and those who, like Mr Assange, published it. But WikiLeaks was founded on exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Surely its editor-in-chief should recognise his duty to see it upheld.He has always argued that it is not the sex offence inquiries that he is avoiding, but extradition from Sweden to the US. Chelsea Manning, the soldier who originally downloaded the material and leaked it to Mr Assange, is serving a long sentence in military detention. There are indications that WikiLeaks is in the US justice department’s sights: it’s been confirmed that a grand jury is investigating; no indictment has been made public, but that does not mean there is none. Equally, the justice department could decide to make a distinction between government employees and military personnel who had a duty to protect classified information, and those who, like Mr Assange, published it. But WikiLeaks was founded on exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Surely its editor-in-chief should recognise his duty to see it upheld.
10.46am GMT10.46am GMT
10:4610:46
Hammond rejects finding as 'ridiculous'Hammond rejects finding as 'ridiculous'
Foreign secretary Philip Hammond has rejected the panel’s opinion as a “ridiculous”.Foreign secretary Philip Hammond has rejected the panel’s opinion as a “ridiculous”.
He said: “It is right the he [Assange] not be allowed to escape justice. This is frankly a ridiculous finding”.He said: “It is right the he [Assange] not be allowed to escape justice. This is frankly a ridiculous finding”.
Speaking at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart in London, Hammond said Assange was in fact “hiding from justice”.Speaking at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart in London, Hammond said Assange was in fact “hiding from justice”.
10.41am GMT10.41am GMT
10:4110:41
On whether the panel’s finding was legally binding Peschoux answer was also nuanced. He said:On whether the panel’s finding was legally binding Peschoux answer was also nuanced. He said:
“The working group is issuing an opinion, because it is working group it is not a court, so it is not issuing rulings. The working group is the highest UN authoritative body to deal with disputes between a person who is in detention and authorities detaining them ... The opinion is legally binding to the extent that it is based on international human rights norms which have been ratified by states.”“The working group is issuing an opinion, because it is working group it is not a court, so it is not issuing rulings. The working group is the highest UN authoritative body to deal with disputes between a person who is in detention and authorities detaining them ... The opinion is legally binding to the extent that it is based on international human rights norms which have been ratified by states.”
10.29am GMT10.29am GMT
10:2910:29
Here’s audio of that UN press conference in Geneva. Peschoux opened with the cryptic statement: “The panel has decided that the detention [of Assange] maybe legal but it is arbitrary.”Here’s audio of that UN press conference in Geneva. Peschoux opened with the cryptic statement: “The panel has decided that the detention [of Assange] maybe legal but it is arbitrary.”
Baffled reporters were told to look at the details of the opinion to understand what that meant.Baffled reporters were told to look at the details of the opinion to understand what that meant.
UpdatedUpdated
at 10.30am GMTat 10.30am GMT
10.18am GMT10.18am GMT
10:1810:18
Peschoux said it was “very unusual” for such a panel ruling not to be unanimous. He said they were usually based on consensus. Three of the five member panel supported the ruling. One member dissented, an Australian member of the panel absented herself as she shares Assange’s nationality.Peschoux said it was “very unusual” for such a panel ruling not to be unanimous. He said they were usually based on consensus. Three of the five member panel supported the ruling. One member dissented, an Australian member of the panel absented herself as she shares Assange’s nationality.
10.13am GMT10.13am GMT
10:1310:13
Peschoux said the UK and Sweden had two months to contest the panel’s 3 to 1 ruling.Peschoux said the UK and Sweden had two months to contest the panel’s 3 to 1 ruling.
10.08am GMT10.08am GMT
10:0810:08
Christophe Peschoux, a senior official at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, insists that the panel’s finding is in effect legally binding because its based on international human rights law.Christophe Peschoux, a senior official at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, insists that the panel’s finding is in effect legally binding because its based on international human rights law.
Speaking in Geneva he said it was up to Britain and Sweden to decide on what level of compensation Assange should be offered.Speaking in Geneva he said it was up to Britain and Sweden to decide on what level of compensation Assange should be offered.
UpdatedUpdated
at 10.11am GMTat 10.11am GMT
9.58am GMT9.58am GMT
09:5809:58
Owen BowcottOwen Bowcott
The former chair of the UNWGAD panel, the Norwegian lawyer Professor Mads Andenas, told Owen Bowcott that the expert lawyers and members of the group had come under considerable political pressure from the US and UK when compiling the highly critical report.The former chair of the UNWGAD panel, the Norwegian lawyer Professor Mads Andenas, told Owen Bowcott that the expert lawyers and members of the group had come under considerable political pressure from the US and UK when compiling the highly critical report.
Andenas completed his term in office last summer but was involved in earlier stages of compiling the report on Assange’s arbitrary detention. He endorsed the broad result of the findings released on Friday.Andenas completed his term in office last summer but was involved in earlier stages of compiling the report on Assange’s arbitrary detention. He endorsed the broad result of the findings released on Friday.
“I’m absolutely convinced that [the panel] has been put under very string political pressure,” he said.“I’m absolutely convinced that [the panel] has been put under very string political pressure,” he said.
“This is a courageous decision which is important for the international rule of law.“This is a courageous decision which is important for the international rule of law.
“This is a clear, and for people who read it, an obvious, decision. It’s an outcome of a judicial process in which Sweden and the UK have taken part. It was before a specialist body at the UN, the only UN body dealing with arbitrary detention.”“This is a clear, and for people who read it, an obvious, decision. It’s an outcome of a judicial process in which Sweden and the UK have taken part. It was before a specialist body at the UN, the only UN body dealing with arbitrary detention.”
There was a clear finding under Article Nine of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Assange is subject to arbitrary detention, he explained.There was a clear finding under Article Nine of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Assange is subject to arbitrary detention, he explained.
“If this finding had been made against any other country with a human rights record that one does not wish to compare oneself with, then these states [Sweden and UK] would have made it clear that the [offending] country should comply with the ruling of the working group. It’s not a good thing for any country to get a ruling for arbitrary detention against it.“If this finding had been made against any other country with a human rights record that one does not wish to compare oneself with, then these states [Sweden and UK] would have made it clear that the [offending] country should comply with the ruling of the working group. It’s not a good thing for any country to get a ruling for arbitrary detention against it.
“For the international human rights system to function, states must abide by the rulings. There’s no other way to deal with it. If the state is in violation of international law, it’s for the state to find ways to give effect to the [panel’s] decision.”“For the international human rights system to function, states must abide by the rulings. There’s no other way to deal with it. If the state is in violation of international law, it’s for the state to find ways to give effect to the [panel’s] decision.”
9.54am GMT9.54am GMT
09:5409:54
Sweden’s ministry for foreign affairs has released a three-page letter rejecting the panel’s findings. It seized on the dissenting opinion from one of the panel’s five members.Sweden’s ministry for foreign affairs has released a three-page letter rejecting the panel’s findings. It seized on the dissenting opinion from one of the panel’s five members.
Here are the key passages: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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.56am GMTat 9.56am GMT
9.43am GMT9.43am GMT
09:4309:43
Former British diplomat Craig Murray points out that Sweden and the UK are in dodgy company by challenging the UN panel.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: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.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.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.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.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 GMT9.34am GMT
09:3409:34
The UN is about to give a press briefing in Geneva on the panel’s findings. You can follow it here...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 @UNGenevaWatch: Live press briefing on the details of #Assange's arbitrary detention case https://t.co/JInciPe1QV @UNGeneva
UpdatedUpdated
at 9.37am GMTat 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 GMT
09:19
Sweden 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:
“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/zs0yRkCSWs
9.01am GMT
09:01
UK government to contest finding
The UK government has confirmed that it will formally contest the opinion of the UN panel.
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.
“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.”
Updated
at 9.11am GMT
8.59am GMT
08:59
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.
While 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 delay
8.54am GMT
08:54
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:
“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 GMT
08:50
Owen 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 out
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.”
Only three of the five member panel therefore supported the finding against the UK and Sweden.
8.46am GMT
08:46
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.
8.45am GMT
08:45
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.
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 GMT
08:33
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christophe Peschoux from the UN said the panel’s decisions were legally binding.
Updated
at 8.38am GMT