Hanna Jonasson · @AssangeLegal
6th Feb 2017 from TwitLonger
On Anniversary of UN Decision, Assange calls on UK, Sweden to release him
Press Release: On Anniversary of UN Decision, Assange calls on UK, Sweden to release him
Today marks one year since the UN announced that Sweden and UK were acting unlawfully by depriving Julian Assange of his liberty since December 7,
2010. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) instructed [http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx] the UK and Sweden to “ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation”.
[VIDEO of UN announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcw3SKVRUbM ]
The UK exhausted all avenues for appeal when the UN announced on November
30, 2016 that it had re-affirmed [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20961&LangID=E]
its original decision.
One year on, neither government has complied with the UN's findings. They remain
in breach of their international obligations under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) including its Article 7 prohibition against
"cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment".
*Julian Assange, the publisher and editor of WikiLeaks, said:*
*"I call on UK and Sweden to do the right thing and restore my liberty.
These two states signed treaties to recognise the UN and its human rights
mechanisms. Their governments accepted the jurisdiction of the UNWGAD in my
case--the world's peak legal body for cases of arbitrary detention. At no
time in the 16 month process did they withdraw. They lost, appealed and
lost again. This refusal to respect the umpire's decision comes at a
terrible cost: other states can now illegally detain Swedish and UK
citizens with effective impunity and the UN human rights system more
broadly is imperilled. Already their breach has been used to justify human
rights abuses in Sri Lanka and the UAE."*
For the last 4.5 years that Mr. Assange has been forced to remain in the
embassy of Ecuador by threat of arrest. Ecuador granted him refugee status
due to the ongoing US case against him over his publishing work which
threatens him with life imprisonment. Although the UK and Sweden are
obliged under international law to not extradite individuals with refugee
status to the country that persecutes them, they have refused to follow
this universally recognised norm when it comes to Mr. Assange and the
United States. He has not been charged with an offence in Sweden.
-
1. Reactions to the UK's failure to implement the decision without delay
2. Reactions to Sweden's failure to implement the decision without delay
3. How did the UK react to the UNWGAD decision?
4. How did Sweden react to the UNWGAD decision?
1. Reactions to the UK's failure to implement the decision without delay:
-* The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al
Hussein, reprimanded Sweden's rejection of the UNWGAD's findings on
Assange, telling [http://www.dawn.com/news/1238476] AFP that "Human rights
law, the treaty body law is binding law, it is not discretionary law, it is
not some passing fancy that a state can apply sometimes and not in others".
-* The United Nations Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable
international order, Alfred de Zayas, issued a statement on 18 January
2017 calling for [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21097&LangID=E] "this abnormal and inhuman situation to end" and "urged the UK and Swedish Governments to strengthen the human rights system by giving effect" to the UNWGAD's findings and expressed concern that "neither Government has taken steps toward implementation and Mr Assange finds himself a refugee under the diplomatic protection of Ecuador."
De Zayas also denounced Sweden and UK's refusal to comply with the UNWGAD's findings a year ago, writing [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17042&LangID=E] that “The international order depends on the consistent and uniform application of international law, and is undermined when States pick and choose. An à la carte approach to human rights erodes the credibility of the entire system... It is important that countries that regularly engage in naming and shaming of other countries accept United Nations rulings when they themselves are implicated. It is a matter of intellectual honesty."
-* Human Rights Watch denounced [https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/05/assange-following-rules-or-flouting-them] "the deplorable rhetorical parries from the UK and Swedish governments" against the UNWGAD following the UN decision. HRW said the governments of Sweden and the UK have "severely damaged their own reputation for being so ready to dismiss upholding inconvenient human rights obligations and their
credibility as global advocates for rights by refuging to respect the
institution of asylum." Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth has made
similar [https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/696017528687042560] remarks.
-* Numerous lawyers' associations and human rights organisations have raised [https://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/FINAL_Joint_Submission_for_the_22nd_Session_of_the_Universal_Periodic_Review_of_the_United_Kingdom-JA-2.pdf] the UK's failure to implement the UNWGAD's Assange decision before the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review process, which assesses the United Kingdom's compliance with its international human rights
obligations over the past five years.
-* States and NGOs have [intervened->http://www.cetim.ch/cetim-on-the-illegal-detention-of-julian-assange-wikileaks/] at the UN Human Rights Council sessions to denounce [https://twitter.com/MicolSavia/status/775771618975113216] the UK's disparaging remarks about the UNWGAD and called for the UK to implement the UN's decision.
-* 500 high profile signatories urged [https://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/Letter_to_Ambassador_of_UK_to_Geneva_1_March_2016-2.pdf] the United Kingdom to comply with the UNWGAD Assange decision. The signatories include Nobel Peace Prize laureates and Academy Award winners.
-* Members of the European Parliament urged EU Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy Federica Mogherini, to take "immediate action and effective
measures" in relation to the UK and Sweden for their non-compliance with
the UNWGAD's decision (11 February 2016).
2. Reactions to the Sweden's failure to implement the decision without delay:
-* The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein,
reprimanded Sweden's rejection of the UNWGAD's findings on Assange, telling [http://www.dawn.com/news/1238476] AFP that "Human rights law, the treaty body law is binding law, it is not discretionary law, it is not some
passing fancy that a state can apply sometimes and not in others".
-* The United Nations Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable
international order, Alfred de Zayas, issued a statement on 18 January
2017 calling for [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21097&LangID=E]
"this abnormal and inhuman situation to end" and "urged the UK and Swedish
Governments to strengthen the human rights system by giving effect" to the
UNWGAD's findings and expressed concern that "neither Government has taken
steps toward implementation and Mr Assange finds himself a refugee under
the diplomatic protection of Ecuador." De Zayas also denounced Sweden and
UK's refusal to comply with the UNWGAD's findings a year ago, writing [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17042&LangID=E] that “The international order depends on the consistent and uniform
application of international law, and is undermined when States pick and
choose. An à la carte approach to human rights erodes the credibility of the entire system... It is important that countries that regularly engage
in naming and shaming of other countries accept United Nations rulings when
they themselves are implicated. It is a matter of intellectual honesty."
-* Human Rights Watch denounced [https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/05/assange-following-rules-or-flouting-them] "the deplorable rhetorical parries from the UK and Swedish governments" against the UNWGAD following the UN decision. HRW said the governments of Sweden and the UK have "severely damaged their own reputation for being so ready to dismiss upholding inconvenient human rights obligations and their
credibility as global advocates for rights by refuging to respect the
institution of asylum." Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth has made similar [https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/696017528687042560] remarks.
-* States and NGOs have intervened [http://www.cetim.ch/cetim-on-the-illegal-detention-of-julian-assange-wikileaks/] at the UN Human Rights Council sessions to denounce [https://twitter.com/MicolSavia/status/775771618975113216] Sweden's disparaging remarks about the UNWGAD and called for the UK to implement the UN's decision.
-* 500 high profile signatories urged [https://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/Letter_to_Ambassador_of_Sweden_to_Geneva_1_March_2016-2.pdf]
Sweden to comply with the UNWGAD Assange decision. The signatories include
Nobel Peace Prize laureates and Academy Award winners.
-* Members of the European Parliament urged EU Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy Federica Mogherini, to take "immediate action and effective
measures" in relation to the UK and Sweden for their non-compliance with
the UNWGAD's decision (11 February 2016).
-* Almost 60 international organisations denounced [https://www.nlg.org/nlg-and-nearly-60-international-organizations-urge-un-to-remedy-human-rights-violations-in-pre-charge-detention-of-julian-assange/] Sweden's abusive treatment of Assange at Sweden's Universal Periodic Review in 2014, for the same reasons that the UNWGAD subsequently found he was unlawfully detained.
*3. How did the United Kingdom react to the UNWGAD's decision?*
The UK adopted a dual strategy in response to the UNWGAD's decision.
Publicly, the UK vociferously rejected the UN's findings and attempted to
diminish the credibility of the Working Group. It attempted to do so for
example by claiming, falsely, that the UN experts were "laypersons" who
didn't understand the law. The UK also claimed that the UN decision was
"not binding" (the UN says it is). Certain elements of the UK media
uncritically repeated the UK's position, without reporting the position [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E]
of the UN:
"The binding nature of [UNWGAD] opinions derives from the collaboration by
States in the procedure [UK and Sweden acknowledged the authority of the
WGAD by participating in the process and submitting their arguments to the
body], the adversarial nature of its findings [the WGAD receives arguments
from both sides to the dispute] and also the authority given to the WGAD by
the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered
as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial
institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights."
Quietly however, the UK filed an appeal to submit additional arguments that
it hoped would persuade the UNWGAD to reverse its decision on Assange's
unlawful detention. On 29 November 2016 the UN rejected the UK's
application. The UN's decision on Assange's arbitrary detention therefore
stands.
The UK and Sweden were given two weeks' advance notice of the Assange
decision prior to the UNWGAD's 5th of February announcement of its
decision in Assange. This head start allowed the UK to coordinate its
public relations strategy with Sweden head of the announcement of their
defeat, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show [https://archive.org/details/FCOFOI016016And025916/].
*4. How did Sweden react to the UNWGAD decision?*
Unlike the United Kingdom, the Swedish government did not attempt to
reverse the UNWGAD's decision, and thus accepted it in practice.
Like the UK, Sweden claims that the UNWGAD's decision is "not binding".
The UN's position is that the decision is binding, and issued guidance to
editors explaining why [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E]:
"The binding nature of [UNWGAD] opinions derives from the collaboration by
States in the procedure [UK and Sweden acknowledged the authority of the
WGAD by participating in the process and submitting their arguments to the
body], the adversarial nature of its findings [the WGAD receives arguments
from both sides to the dispute] and also the authority given to the WGAD by
the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered
as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial
institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights."
The UN Human Rights Committee, the body that monitors compliance with the
ICCPR (which Sweden was found to be in violation of by the UNWGAD in
relation to Assange), raised the Assange case repeatedly during its closed
session with Swedish officials in March 2016. The Swedish government has
used the separation of powers as a pretext for why Sweden has failed to
implement the UNWGAD's decision. The Human Rights Committee responded that
Sweden's explanations as to why it was failing to comply with the UNWGAD's
decision on Assange were
"unsatisfactory" [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17202&LangID=E].
The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, whose reprehensible management of the
"preliminary investigation" has resulted in Sweden being in breach of its
international legal obligations according to the UNWGAD's findings [http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx], told the Swedish courts that "there is no obligation for Sweden to follow the opinion of the Working Group and that Julian Assange's state of health and living conditions at the Embassy shall not be given any importance".
The UK and Sweden were given two weeks' advance notice of the Assange
decision prior to the UNWGAD's 5th of February announcement of its
decision in Assange. This head start allowed the UK to coordinate its
public relations strategy with Sweden ahead of the announcement of their
defeat, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show [https://archive.org/details/FCOFOI016016And025916/].
More: https://justice4assange.com