We are now closing this blog after Julian Assange’s impromptu victory celebration on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy, his home for the past five and a half years. Thank you for reading.
The indefatigable Jessica Elgot has just filed from the embassy on Assange’s impromptu victory celebration.
After a warm up of songs from supporters and their guitar, Assange got on the balcony to hail his "sweet" victory pic.twitter.com/MM1avHsulU
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) February 5, 2016
Julian Assange has declared he is “tough” enough to withstand longer confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy, but demanded the UK and Sweden heed the UN’s opinion that he is arbitrarily detained in an impassioned speech to supporters and media crowded around the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightbridge.
In the 12-minute speech, Assange said his legal team would now examine if there were “criminal consequences” for the parties who he said continue to deny him his freedom, citing the UN Convention Against Torture.
Activists and supporters played peace songs as a warm up act for the WikiLeaks founder, as the rumour spread that he would be appearing on the embassy balcony.
He appeared a minute past 4pm, in the grey suit and yellow tie he wore at an earlier press conference. “How sweet it is,” he said. “This is a victory that cannot be denied.”
In the fading afternoon light, he thanked the jurists and the legal team that decided in his favour, before pausing for several moments to collect this thoughts, staring into the crowd.
“The UN had made a statement that is legally binding,” he said, to shouts of ‘yes!’ from the supporters who had linked arms and formed a protective barrier in front of the balcony between Assange and the media. “There have been comments made by Hammond, foreign minister of this country, that this changes nothing,” Assange continued. “Hammond may be a perfectly nice person but his comments are merely rhetoric.
“He doesn’t state that the UK will refuse to accept the authority of the Working Group of arbitrary detention. The UK and Sweden were party to a 16-month process, we made submissions, the UK responded to those submissions. They lost!”
Assange described himself as having been arbitrarily detained for five and a half years, a comment which provoked the ire of a passer-by, who yelled repeatedly will you be here for another five and a half years?” The heckler persisted for a minute or two before Assange said: “can someone close that person up?” to cheers from his supporters. “This is a free country mate,” the man shouted back.
Assange ended his speech with an appeal to authorities to consider the impact the last five years had had on his family. “I am tough, I can take it. But what right does the government have to deny my children their father for five and a half years? My children are completely innocent. They are not in the business of holding governments to account, they are in the business of being children. They need their father back.”
“There are good people in the UK government, in the Foreign Office, in the British police, the Swedish foreign ministry, the US state department and even the US military, and it is partly due to these good people and their ongoing support that has led to this victory. These people understand that history is on their side and I am very grateful.”
Updated
Assange: 'How sweet it is. A victory that cannot be denied'
Assange’s appearance lasted about 10 minutes. When he first appeared, his supporters shouted: “We love you.” and “Julian your friends are you.” He held up a copy of the UN as he spoke as if it was a badge of vindication. His first words were: “How sweet it is. This is a victory that cannot be denied. It is a victory of historical importance for me, my family, my children and for the independence of the UN system.”
The UN document was not just a visual prop. He read its conclusion declaring that deprivation of his liberty was arbitrary, which was greeted by cheers. And then he asked what right the British, Swedish and US governments had to deny his children of their father.
Updated
Assange has appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy clutching a copy of the UN report - there had been rumours that he would. He repeats much of what he said before in the videolink, but then goes into quite an emotional tirade about how his children have been deprived of their father for five and a half years.
“My children are completely innocent parties, they are not in politics, they are not into holding governments to account. It’s time they had their father back. That will happen,” he says to cheers from the crowd below and to the odd heckler. At one point he says: “can anyone close that person down”.
He went on to say that there would consequences for the governments that have put him in his predicament.
“There will be criminal consequences for those parties involved,” he said.
Updated
Summary
Here’s a summary of where things stand:
- A UN panel has found that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by the UK and Sweden for more than five years and should be released immediately with compensation. The panel calls on the Swedish and British authorities to end Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement and offer him compensation.
- Assange welcomed the finding as a “vindication.” He said it was “now a matter of settled law”. Speaking via Skype from the Ecuadorian embassy where he remains holed up, he added: “We have today a really significant victory that has brought a smile to my face and I hope many others as well.”
- Ecuador welcomed the UN panel’s finding. Foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said: “It is time for both governments (Britain and Sweden) to correct their mistake, time for them to allow Julian Assange his freedom, time for them to end this arbitrary detention and furthermore compensate the damage done to this man.”
- The British government said it would contest the decision. Foreign secretary Philip Hammond said it was “flawed in law” and “frankly ridiculous”. Assanged dismissed Hammond’s comments as “insulting”.
- The Swedish government also rejected the panel’s findings. It said: “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.”
- Christophe Peschoux, a senior official at the UN’s commision for human rights said the UK had had two months to contest the panel’s 3 to 1 finding. He said it was “very unusual” for such a panel ruling not to be unanimous.
- Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general who was in post when Assange first entered the Ecuadorian embassy, dismissed the UN’s panel’s ruling as “very far-fetched”. But Roland Adjovi Sètondji , one of the three members of the UN panel who backed the finding has defended the opinion. “The working group was of the view that this was a lengthy process that jeopardised his right to a fair trial,” he said.
There’ll be more on the Julian Assange section of the Guardian’s site.
Updated
The online book maker Paddy Power is offering odds of 14-1 for Julian Assange to walk away from the Ecuadorean Embassy a free man this month.
Paddy Power is also taking bets on how Assange will make his exit from the Embassy. “A tenner on a Taxi at 13-2 would return more than enough to cover his fare!,” it says.
When will Assange get out?
- 7-2 2017 or later
- 6-1 March
- 14-1 8-29 February
- 100-1 Before 8 February
The Guardian’s former investigations editor David Leigh, who worked with Assange on publication of leaded US embassy cables before falling out with the Wikileaks founder, urges us to remember the whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Leigh says it is Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years for leaking the cables, who is the real political prisoner.
Assange circus: let's not forget the REAL political prisoner https://t.co/Fk7iEMZlU9
— David Leigh (@davidleigh3) February 5, 2016
Ecuador: Assange must be allowed to go free
Ecuador has welcomed the UN panel’s finding. Foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said Assange must be allowed to go free.
“It is time for both governments (Britain and Sweden) to correct their mistake, time for them to allow Julian Assange his freedom, time for them to end this arbitrary detention and furthermore compensate the damage done to this man,” Patiño told a press conference acoording to AFP.
He added: “We’ve said it from the beginning, but now we’re not the only ones. This is obvious political persecution. That has been absolutely demonstrated.”
“What more do they want to be accused of before they start to rectify their error?” he told South American broadcaster Telesur, in reference to Britain and Sweden. Patino said Ecuador was analysing its next steps.
On Thursday Ecuador said it deserved compensation for housing Assange in its London embassy.
“That shows we were right, after so many years,” Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa told a news conference in Quito in reference to the panel’s anticipated finding.
“But who is going to compensate the harm that has been done to Julian Assange and to Ecuador? Do you know how much it costs to maintain security at the embassy?” he asked.
“We experienced spying attempts and lots of other things.”
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended that Assange be entitled to compensation, but it said nothing about Ecuador’s costs of housing him.
Patino said Assange was welcome to remain in the embassy.
“The basis on which we granted him asylum remains in place,” Patino told reporters.
Updated
The word from the Ecuadorian embassy is that Assange may soon make an appearance on the balcony.
Reuters has a live feed from outside the building.
Roland Adjovi Sètondji from Benin, one of the three members of the UN panel who backed the finding has defended the opinion.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme he said: “We saw this time he has been in the embassy as a continuation of two obvious detention situations. He [Assange] was detained first in a British prison for 10 days , before being released on house arrest for almost two years.”
Sètondji added: “In any criminal justice there is an obligation of timely process. This investigation has been going on for five years and there is no charges, there is no indictment of Julian Assange until now. The working group was of the view that this was a lengthy process that jeopardised his right to a fair trial.”
Asked to respond to the foreign secretary’s claim that finding was “ridiculous”, Sètondji said “obviously I can’t share that view, but I don’t have to comment on state authority’s views.”
Updated
How did the UN get it so wrong on Julian Assange? asks Joshua Rozenberg.
First, they said he had been detained in prison for 10 days in 2010 “at the very beginning of the episode that lasted longer than five years”. They claimed “the arbitrariness is inherent in this form of deprivation of liberty”. This is palpably absurd. Assange was detained pending possible extradition. If his detention had been arbitrary he could not have challenged it, and been released on bail. But that not was what happened. The three-and-a-half years he has spent as a fugitive from justice cannot affect the lawfulness of his original imprisonment.
According to the working group, his 10 days in prison was followed by 550 days of house arrest. He suffered “harsh restrictions”, including tagging and restrictions on staying out overnight. Harsh restrictions?
And then we get to the fatal flaw. The working group considers that Assange’s stay at the embassy “should be considered as a prolongation of the already continued deprivation of liberty”. Its members provides no justification for this leap of logic.
Assange’s argument is that he was granted “diplomatic” immunity by Ecuador. But the UK does not recognise the notion that a state can merely designate as a diplomat anyone, of whatever nationality, and they are then exempt from the general law.
Fortunately, the working group does not seem to have been taken in by this notion. Instead, the majority base their opinion on the length of time that has passed, as if to say that a fugitive is entitled to avoid justice by merely hiding away for a few years.
If Assange is extradited to Sweden and charged with rape, there is no reason why he should not receive a fair trial. Any disadvantage he may suffer through the delay is entirely down to him. He has not been subjected to arbitrary detention. The idea that he should receive compensation for hiding himself away in Knightsbridge – as the working group says – simply heaps offensiveness on absurdity.
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general who was in post when Assange first entered the Ecuadorian embassy, dismissed the UN’s panel’s ruling as “very far-fetched”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme he said: “I find the opinion a very extraordinary document.”
He said the main criticisms were aimed at the Swedish rather than British authorities, but added:
“What it effectively says in relation to the United Kingdom is that we ought no longer to be extraditing Mr Assange to Sweden because in 2014 we changed our own laws under the anti-social behaviour, crime and policing act to change some of rules on which extradition should take place, and you’ll appreciate that Mr Assange was extradited under the earlier regime but of course it doesn’t apply retrospectively.
Then there is a quite an astonishing argument that the whole process has been arbitrary. They suggest he was held under house arrest for 550 days when in fact he was subject to bail conditions and I seem to recollect living in a rather large house in Suffolk where he was obliged to report to the police on a daily basis. The reason why the whole thing lasted 550 days is because he spent those 550 days challenging his extradition to Sweden and taking the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.
“He voluntarily took the decision to go to the Ecuadorian embassy and indeed he could leave the Ecuadorian embassy at any time of his choosing. And when he left it he would have the full protection of our English legal system which would enable him to challenge the decision.
“It is not that I’m saying there may not be some points to be looked at, but the suggestion that he has been the subject of arbitrariness seemed to be very far fetched.”
Peter Tatchell, the prominent human rights activist, has joined the
swelling numbers of Assange supporters outside the Ecuadorian embassy, writes Jessica Elgot.
He was highly critical of the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny and the delay in questioning Assange at the embassy. Swedish and Ecuadorian legal teams only last month reached agreement which would allow the interview to take place.
Tatchell said: “The Swedish prosecutor kept imposed many unreasonable conditions. It is a key principle of justice that it should not be delayed. If the Swedish prosecutor decides to interview him here and finds there is credible evidence to charge him, then he should of course face justice, but if there isn’t ...”
Tatchell, who has visited Assange on several occasions, called the WikiLeaks founder “a realist” about his prospects of leaving the embassy a free man. “But he is hopeful that justice will eventually prevail. David Cameron is consistently condemning, rightly, countries who do not respect the UN. Now his government is doing exactly the
same.”
Tatchell is a long-standing supporter of Assange, here today with a growing number of activists pic.twitter.com/kWcP5vpeGE
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) February 5, 2016
Here’s the start of Esther Addley’s first take on Assange’s remarks:
Julian Assange has accused Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, of insulting the United Nations in his response to a panel finding that Assange’s circumstances amount to “arbitrary detention”.
Hammond called the panel’s finding “ridiculous” and said the Wikileaks founder was a “fugitive from justice”. Assange said the remarks were “beneath the stature that a foreign minister should express in this situation”.
Assange said of the panel’s finding: “This is the end of the road for the legal arguments that have been put forward by Sweden and the UK.”
Appearing at a west London press conference by videolink from the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has remained since seeking asylum in 2012, Assange said that if Sweden and the UK continued to dispute the report, “the diplomatic effect is that it will become difficult for [the two countries] to be treated seriously as international players”.
Lord Macdonald QC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, condemned the UN panel report as misguided, writes Owen Bowcott.
He told The Guardian: “This report is beyond parody. Julian Assange is wanted in connection with a grave sexual offence in a country that has a fair trial justice system consistent with the highest international standards. Instead of cooperating with the Swedish authorities, as he should have done, Mr Assange has chosen to hole up in a foreign embassy, deliberately frustrating a serious criminal investigation.
“To describe his situation as ‘arbitrary detention’ is ludicrous. Rather than expecting Swedish prosecutors to visit him at his leisure in his hiding place, Mr Assange should recognise that he is not above the law, give himself up and answer the allegations he faces. The United Nations Panel on Arbitrary Detention has embarrassed itself and all those concerned about real injustices in the world.
Back at the Frontline club, where the press conference is still going on, Melinda Taylor confirms that Assange won’t be walking out of the Ecuadorian embassy. “Mr Assange will not be walking out because of a risk [of being extradited] to the United States. It is a risk that hasn’t been addressed by Sweden and the United Kingdom,” she said.
Jessica Elgot has more from the Assange supporters gathering at the Ecuadorian embassy:
The WikiLeaks supporters who have kept vigil for Julian Assange since he arrived at the Embassy are a close bunch, with many arriving at midday for moral support as Assange prepared to address the Frontline club via video link.
Homemade posters have been put up on the White iron bars at the front of the embassy and on the railings of the flats facing it. Addressing the press pack through a megaphone, former Spanish teacher Elsa Collins said the UK government was detaining Assange illegally.
“The UK government is breaking international law, they try to say they abide by United Nations but they do not. He has been deprived of all human rights. UK and Sweden must be held accountable. This is not a democracy if they arrest Julian Assange. We demand our governments obey international law.”
Andrew Sparrow has more on Downing Street condemnation of the UN panel’s finding.
A spokesman for the prime minister said: “It’s ridiculous.There’s an arrest warrant out for [Assange]. He has never been arbitrarily detained in this country. It is entirely his choice to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy and he is avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain there.”
The spokesman also said that the people on the UN panel were lay people rather than lawyers, and that every time Assange had challenged the legal process in court, in every legal jurisdiction, he had lost.
The Swedish has issued an arrest warrant for Assange in connection with some very serious offences, the spokesman went on, and Britain would put that warrant into effect if it could.
“Ultimately it is a question for Mr Assange why has has chosen to detain himself in this way,” the spokesman said.
Summary
Here’s a summary of where things stand:
- A UN panel has found that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by the UK and Sweden for more than five years and should be released immediately with compensation. The panel calls on the Swedish and British authorities to end Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement and offer him compensation.
- Assange welcomed the finding as a “vindication.” He said it was “now a matter of settled law”. Speaking via Skype from the Ecuadorian embassy where he remains holed up, he added: “We have today a really significant victory that has brought a smile to my face and I hope many others as well.”
- The British government said it would contest the decision. Foreign secretary Philip Hammond said it was “flawed in law” and “frankly ridiculous”. Assanged dismissed Hammond’s comments as “insulting”.
- The Swedish government also rejected the panel’s findings. It said: “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.”
-
Christophe Peschoux, a senior official at the UN’s commision for human rights said the UK had had two months to contest the panel’s 3 to 1 finding. He said it was “very unusual” for such a panel ruling not to be unanimous.
The first writeups of Assange’s statement are coming in. The first take of the Press Assoication picks up on his criticism of the British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remained inside the Ecuadorian Embassy today, launching an attack against the Government for its “insulting” response to a UN working group report on his detention.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond branded the working group’s findings on the “arbitrary detention” of Mr Assange as “frankly ridiculous” and said the Australian was “hiding from justice”.
He spoke out after the UN panel had ruled Mr Assange was being “arbitrarily detained” in the Ecuadorian embassy in London - and called for him to be paid compensation.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said the Swedish and British authorities should end Mr Assange’s “deprivation of liberty” and respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement.
Mr Assange spoke via Skype to a press conference in London, saying the UN report had brought a smile to his face, and insisting his detention had now been formally ruled as unlawful.
He said comments by Mr Hammond were “beneath” the minister’s stature and insulting to the UN.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press highlighted Assange’s assessment of the UN panel’s decision:
Julian Assange says a U.N. panel’s finding that he has been arbitrarily detained is a “vindication.”
The WikiLeaks founder says it is “now a matter of settled law” that he has been wrongly detained.
Assange spoke to journalists by video from the London embassy of Ecuador, where he has been holed up for 3½ years to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning about alleged sexual offenses.
Assange said Britain and Sweden cannot appeal the panel’s finding, but Britain has already indicated it will challenge.
Here’s audio of the full 10 minute response from Assange.
Here’s a video clip of Assange’s response.
Assange closed by saying:
I would like to say thank you, that I miss my family. That we have today a really significant victory that has brought a smile to my face and I hope many others as well.
Updated
Assange thanked the UN for “producing this verdict”. He said it would help his case for freedom but was also an important ruling generally on arbitrary detention.
Assange thanks his lawyers.
Assange said that if the UK and Sweden continued to undermine the panel’s finding they would be hit diplomatically. “We have now a victory, and decided law on this case,” he said.
Assange insisted the panel’s findings were legally binding. The panel was a higher body than national law, he said.
Assange also described Philip Hammond’s comments as insulting and beneath a foreign secretary. He said Hammond’s claim that the finding was ridiculous was just for “domestic consumption”.
Assange claimed there was no appeal against the panel’s decision; it was a matter of “settled law”. Earlier the UN said Sweden and the UK had two months to contest the findings. But Assange said: “The time for appeal is over.”
Updated
Assange appears via videolink: “Today that detention without charge has been found to be unlawful. I consider the outcome a vindication.”
Updated
Taylor says the panel recommendation of compensation for Assange highlights that he has become a victim of his whistleblowing.
Updated
Taylor says that the indefinite detention of Assange is a form of “mental torture”.
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.
Lawyer Jennifer Robinson described the finding as “resounding victory for Mr Assange”.
The Frontline club press conference is about to get under way. 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
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.”
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
— Frontline Club (@frontlineclub) February 5, 2016
#Assange expected to appear by video link at 12pm press conference. This is the scene with an hour to go.. pic.twitter.com/BeuANslal5
— esther addley (@estheraddley) February 5, 2016
Updated
Here’s footage of the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, describing the finding as “flawed in law” and “frankly ridiculous”.
Updated
Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, says his government will give its response at 7am local time (midday UK time).
Ofreceré la reacción del Ecuador ante la Disposición del Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU en el caso #Assange. @teleSURtv 7h00; @CNNEE 7h30
— Ricardo Patiño Aroca (@RicardoPatinoEC) February 5, 2016
Updated
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/Wmq2YGHiBi
— Philippe Sands (@philippesands) February 5, 2016
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.
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) February 5, 2016
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.
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.
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 Sports
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) February 5, 2016
Remember when Ronnie Biggs was arbitrarily detained in Brazil for over 30 years? #assange @DavidAllenGreen
— Stuart Bramley (@stuafcb) February 5, 2016
Jessica Elgot reports live from the press scrum at the Ecuadorian embassy:
The back streets 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 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 presence at the embassy last year, with the operation having cost the taxpayer more than £12m.
Among the crowds of photographers, 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.
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.
Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA
Updated
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:
“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.”
Philip Hammond also dismissed the panel’s finding as “flawed in law”. Here’s audio of his statement:
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/M5KSaJNLWQ
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) February 5, 2016
The police van has moved to just in front of the embassy balcony. Coppers were stationed round the corner yesterday pic.twitter.com/qZ7YWnUlOy
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) February 5, 2016
This is Jim Curran, who has visited the Embassy to support Assange almost every day. pic.twitter.com/E0vjeUop2T
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) February 5, 2016
A Guardian editorial on the panel’s finding agrees with the Hammond’s assessment.
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.
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.
Hammond rejects finding as '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”.
Speaking at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart in London, Hammond said Assange was in fact “hiding from justice”.
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.”
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.
Updated
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 the UK and Sweden had two months to contest the panel’s 3 to 1 ruling.
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.
Updated
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.
“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 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.
“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.”
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:
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.
Updated
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.
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
— UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) February 5, 2016
Updated
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.
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).
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
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) February 5, 2016
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
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
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) February 5, 2016
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
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) February 5, 2016
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.”
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.
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.
— Foresight News (@ForesightNewsUK) February 5, 2016
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”.
Summary
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
