No self respecting Kangaroo would allow its name to be connected with
this Court.
This is just one more unlearned lesson, teaching us that the American
Corporate Empire does not hold even a single speck of respect for
human life. I become enraged thinking of those who have persecuted
Julian Assange far beyond the limits of human decency.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/17/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've omitted the long list of signatures.
Miriam
ASSANGE EXTRADITION: International Lawyers Make Urgent Appeal to British
Government
August 16, 2020
An array of international lawyers have written to the British prime
minister, foreign secretary, secretary of state for justice and home
secretary outlining his illegal treatment and demanding Julian Assange's
release.
LAWYERS FOR ASSANGE
Independent international legal observers of
the proceedings in the case of Julian Assange
Open Letter to the UK Prime Minister Mr Boris Johnson, the Lord Chancellor
and Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland QC, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs Dominic Raab and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel.
DOWNLOAD LETTER
Dear Prime Minister,
Dear Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice,
Dear Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
Dear Home Secretary,
We write to you as legal practitioners and legal academics to express our
collective concerns about the violations of Mr. Julian Assange's
fundamental
human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is
setting. We call on you to act in accordance with national and
international
law, human rights and the rule of law by bringing an end to the ongoing
extradition proceedings and granting Mr. Assange his long overdue freedom -
freedom from torture, arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty, and
political persecution.
A) ILLEGALITY OF POTENTIAL EXTRADITION TO THE UNITED STATES
Extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to the U.S. would be illegal on the
following grounds:
1. Risk of being subjected to an unfair trial in the U.S.
Extradition would be unlawful owing to failure to ensure the protection of
Mr. Assange's fundamental trial rights in the U.S. Mr. Assange faces show
trial at the infamous "Espionage court" of the Eastern District of
Virginia,
before which no national security defendant has ever succeeded. Here, he
faces secret proceedings before a jury picked from a population in which
most of the individuals eligible for jury selection work for, or are
connected to, the CIA, NSA, DoD or DoS.[i]Furthermore, Mr. Assange's legal
privilege, a right enshrined in Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) and long recognised under English common law, was grossly violated
through constant and criminal video and audio surveillance at the
Ecuadorian
embassy carried out by the Spanish security firm, UC Global. This
surveillance was, according to witness testimony, ordered by the CIA and
has
triggered an investigation into the owner of UC Global, David Morales, by
Spain's High Court, the Audiencia Nacional.[ii] The surveillance resulted
in
all of Mr. Assange's meetings and conversations being recorded, including
those with his lawyers. The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe,
which represents more than a million European lawyers, has expressed its
concerns that these illegal recordings may be used - openly or secretly -
in
proceedings against Mr. Assange in the event of successful extradition to
the U.S. The Council states that if the information merely became known to
the prosecutors, this would present an irremediable breach of Mr. Assange's
fundamental rights to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR and due process
under the U.S. Constitution.[iii] Furthermore, the prosecuting state
obtained the totality of Mr. Assange's legal papers after their unlawful
seizure in the Embassy. Upon hearing that the Government of Ecuador was
planning to seize and hand over personal belongings of Mr. Assange,
including documents, telephones, electronic devices, memory drives, etc. to
the U.S., the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joseph Cannataci, expressed
his serious concern to the Ecuadorian government and twice formally
requested it to return Mr. Assange's personal effects to his lawyers, to no
avail.[iv].
The UN Model Treaty on Extradition prohibits extradition if the person has
not received, or would not receive, the minimum guarantees in criminal
proceedings, as enshrined in Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR).[v]
2. The political nature of the offence prohibits extradition.
The U.S. superseding indictment issued against Mr. Assange on the 24 June
2020 charges him with 18 counts all related solely to the 2010 publications
of U.S. government documents. The publications, comprising information
about
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. diplomatic cables and Guantanamo
Bay,
revealed evidence of war crimes, corruption and governmental
malfeasance.[vi]Charges 1-17 are brought under the Espionage Act 1917,
which, in name alone, reveals the political and antiquated nature of the
charges.[vii]Furthermore, the essence of the 18 charges concerns Mr.
Assange's alleged intention to obtain or disclose U.S. state "secrets" in a
manner that was damaging to the strategic and national security interests
of
the U.S. state, to the capability of its armed forces, the work of the
security and intelligence services of the U.S., and to the interests of the
U.S. abroad. Thus, the conduct, motivation and purpose attributed to Mr.
Assange confirm the political character of the 17 charges brought under the
Espionage Act ('pure political' offences) and of the hacking charge (a
'relative political' offence). In addition, several U.S. government
officials have at various times ascribed motives "hostile" to the U.S. to
Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen.[viii].
The UK-U.S. Extradition Treaty, which provides the very basis of the
extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political
offences in Art. 4(1).
Yet the presiding judge and prosecution wish to simply disregard this
article by referring to the Extradition Act 2003 ("EA") instead, which does
not include the political offence exception. This blatantly ignores the
fact
that the EA is merely an enabling act that creates the minimum statutory
safeguards but it does not preclude stronger protections from extradition
as
expressly provided in subsequently ratified treaties such as the UK-U.S.
Extradition Treaty.
Furthermore, there is broad international consensus that political offences
should not be the basis of extradition.[ix] This is reflected in Art. 3 of
the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 3(a) of the
UN Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and every
bilateral treaty ratified by the U.S. for over a century.
3. Risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in the U.S.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the UN Rapporteur on Torture"),
Professor Nils Melzer, has expressed with certainty that, if extradited to
the U.S., Mr. Assange will be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Similar concerns have also been raised
by
the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Amnesty International has
recently restated its concerns in relation to the unacceptable risk of
mistreatment.[x]The detention conditions, and the draconian punishment of
175 years, in a maximum security prison, which Mr. Assange faces under the
U.S. indictment, would constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, according to the current UN Rapporteur
on
Torture and according to the consistently expressed opinion of his
predecessor, as well as of NGOs and legal authorities.[xi]If extradited,
Mr.
Assange would, by the U.S. government's own admission, likely be placed
under Special Administrative Measures. These measures prohibit prisoners
from contact or communication with all but a few approved individuals, and
any approved individuals would not be permitted to report information
concerning the prisoner's treatment to the public, thereby shielding
potential torture from public scrutiny and government from
accountability.[xii].
Under the principle of non-refoulement, it is not permissible to extradite
a
person to a country in which there are substantial grounds forbelieving
that
they would be subjected to torture. This principle is enshrined in the 1951
UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, specifically Art. 33(1)
from which no derogations are permitted. Also relevant are Art. 3(1) UN
Declaration on Territorial Asylum 1967, Art. 3 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CAT),
and Art. 2 of the Resolution on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution,
adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1967. As
an obligation arising from the prohibition of torture, the principle of
non-refoulement in this area is absolute and also takes on the character of
a peremptory norm of customary international law, i.e. jus cogens.[xiii]
Mr. Assange, who was accepted as a political asylee by the Ecuadorian
government owing to what have proved to have been wholly legitimate fears
of
political persecution and torture in the U.S., should clearly have been
accorded protection of this principle, firstly by Ecuador and secondly by
the UK. Ecuador violated its human rights obligations by summarily
rescinding Mr. Assange's asylum in direct contradiction of the 'Latin
American tradition of asylum'[xiv] and the Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of 30
May 2018 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirming the
principle
of non-refoulement in cases of persons who have entered an embassy for
protection.[xv] The entry of the Ecuadorian Embassy by UK police and the
arrest of Mr. Assange were thus based on an illegal revocation of his
nationality and asylum, which can only be rectified by the UK upholding its
own duty to protect the principle of non-refoulement by denying extradition
to the U.S.
B) VIOLATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW
Counts 1-17 of the indictment under the Espionage Act violate the right to
freedom of expression, the right to freedom of the press and the right to
know. These counts present standard and necessary investigative
journalistic
practices as criminal.[xvi] Such practices include indicating availability
to receive information, indicating what information is of interest,
encouraging the provision of information, receipt of information for the
purpose of publication, and publication of information in the public
interest.
Under the charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the initial
indictment criminalised also Mr. Assange's alleged attempt at helping his
source to maintain their anonymity while providing the documents in
question, which falls squarely under the standard journalistic practice and
duty of protecting the source. In a bid to detract from this fact and
re-paint Mr. Assange as a malicious hacker, the U.S. DoJ has published a
new
"superseding indictment" on 24 June 2020, without even lodging it with the
UK court first, alleging the recruitment of, and agreement with, hackers to
commit computer intrusion. The new indictment has emerged unjustifiably
late
in the day, is based on no new information and the testimony of two highly
compromised sources.
We agree with the assessment of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the
Council of Europe that "The broad and vague nature of the allegations
against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are
troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative
journalism in Europe and beyond."[xvii]
Extradition on the basis of the indictment would gravely endanger freedom
of
the press, a cornerstone of European democracies enshrined in Art. 10
ECHR.[xviii]
The U.S. furthermore seemingly concedes the unconstitutionality of the
charges, having stated in one of its submissions to the Court that Mr.
Assange will be denied the protections of freedom of speech and the press
guaranteed under the First Amendment due to his being a foreign
national.[xix] Furthermore, extraditing Mr. Assange to the U.S. with the
knowledge of their intended discrimination against him would make the UK an
accessory in a flagrant denial of his right to non-discrimination.
The extradition to the U.S. of a publisher and journalist, for engaging in
journalistic activities while in Europe, would set a very dangerous
precedent for the extra-territorialisation of state secrecy laws and "would
post an invitation to other states to follow suit, severely threatening the
ability of journalists, publishers and human rights organisations to safely
reveal information about serious international issues."[xx] Such concerns
for journalistic freedom are echoed by the journalistic profession -over a
thousand journalists signed an open letter opposing Mr. Assange's
extradition.[xxi] Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International's Deputy Europe
Director has branded the U.S. government's unrelenting pursuit of Mr.
Assange as "nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom
of
expression" which "could have a profound impact on the public's right to
know what their government is up to."[xxii]
Furthermore the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated
that member States should "consider that the detention and criminal
prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for
journalists,
and join the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture" in his
call to bar the extradition and for the release from custody of Mr.
Assange.[xxiii]
C) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TORTURE, THE RIGHT TO HEALTH,
AND
THE RIGHT TO LIFE
The UN Rapporteur on Torture has reported, and continues to report, on the
treatment of Mr. Assange as part of his United Nations mandate. On 9 and 10
May 2019, Prof. Melzer and two medical experts specialised in examining
potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment visited Mr. Assange in
Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh ("HMP Belmarsh"). The group's visit and
assessment revealed that Mr. Assange showed "all symptoms typical for
prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress,
chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma."[xxiv] The UN Rapporteur
on Torture concluded "Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a
period of several years, to persistent and progressively severe forms of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects
of which can only be described as psychological torture".
The UN Rapporteur on Torture condemned "in the strongest terms, the
deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted", and
characterised the failure of the UK government and the involved governments
to take measures for the protection of Mr. Assange's human rights and
dignity as "complacency at best and complicity at worst".[xxv]
The abuse includes systematic judicial persecution and violations of due
process rights in all jurisdictions involved and in all related legal
proceedings.[xxvi] It has most recently been demonstrated in the treatment
of Mr. Assange during the extradition proceedings heard at Woolwich Crown
Court, proceedings destined to be infamously remembered for the "glass box"
to which Mr. Assange was confined as if he, an award winning journalist and
a publisher, was a dangerous and violent criminal.
Mr. Assange was subjected to arbitrary detention and oppressive isolation,
harassment and surveillance, while confined in the Ecuadorian
embassy[xxvii]
and continues to be so subjected as a prisoner in HMP Belmarsh. In
Belmarsh,
Mr. Assange has served the irregular and disproportionate sentence of 50
weeks[xxviii] for an alleged bail infringement. Perversely, the allegation,
charge and conviction resulted from Mr. Assange legitimately seeking and
being granted diplomatic asylum by the Ecuadorian government, which
accepted
Mr. Assange's fear of politicised extradition to, and inhuman treatment in,
the U.S., as well founded.[xxix] Although Mr. Assange has now served the
sentence, he remains imprisoned without conviction or legal basis for the
purpose of a political, and thereby illegal, extradition to the U.S.
Further, he is imprisoned amid the Coronavirus pandemic, despite the above
and despite his vulnerability to the virus owing to an underlying lung
condition exacerbated by years of confinement and a history of
psychological
torture. It is particularly worrisome that, as a result of his health and
the medical circumstances, he has even been unable to participate by
video-link at recent hearings, yet he has been refused bail.[xxx]
UK authorities violated Mr. Assange's right to health while deprived of his
liberty in the Ecuadorian Embassy by denying him access to urgent medical
diagnosis and care.[xxxi] The two medical experts who accompanied the UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture on his May 2019 visit to HMP Belmarsh warned
that unless pressure on Mr. Assange was alleviated quickly, his state of
health would enter a downward spiral potentially resulting in his
death.[xxxii] Mr. Assange's father, Mr. John Shipton, has reported that his
son was subjected to physical torture by his being placed in a "hot
box."[xxxiii] On 1 November 2019 the UN Rapporteur on Torture stated:
"[u]nless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane
situation, Mr. Assange's continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may
soon end up costing his life."[xxxiv] Soon after, on 22 November 2019, over
60 doctors from around the world raised concerns about the precarious state
of Mr. Assange's physical and mental health which included fears for his
life, and requested his transfer to a hospital properly equipped and
staffed
for his diagnosis and treatment.[xxxv]
Furthermore, it has been revealed by the employees of UC Global, who worked
at the Ecuadorian embassy, that the CIA actively discussed and considered
kidnapping or poisoning Mr. Assange.[xxxvi] This shows a shocking disregard
for his right to life and the due process of law of the very government
seeking his extradition.
We would like to remind the UK government:
of its duty to protect Mr. Assange's right to life, which is the most
fundamental human right enshrined in Art. 6 of the ICCPR, Art. 2 of the
ECHR
and Art. 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA);
that the prohibition of torture is a norm of international customary law
and
constitutes jus cogens. The prohibition is absolute and so there may be no
derogation under any circumstances, including war, public emergency or
terrorist threat. It is also enshrined in Art. 5 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Arts. 7 and 10 ICCPR, CAT, and Art. 3
ECHR;
of its unconditional obligation, under Art. 12 CAT, to ensure that its
competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of
reported torture, which it has thus far failed to undertake; and
that it is a member State of the World Health Organization, whose
Constitution states: "The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without
distinction of [.] political belief [,,,]everyone should have access to the
health services they need, when and where they need them.
We call on the UK government to take immediate action to cease the torture
being inflicted upon Mr. Assange, to end his arbitrary and unlawful
detention, and to permit his access to independent medical diagnosis and
treatment in an appropriate hospital setting. That doctors, their previous
concerns having been ignored, should have to call on governments to 'End
torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange' in The Lancet is extremely
worrying.[xxxvii]
D) VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
We condemn the denial of Mr. Assange's right to a fair trial before the UK
courts. This right has been denied as follows.
1. Judicial Conflicts of Interest
Senior District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Emma Arbuthnot, who as Chief
Magistrate oversees Mr. Assange's extradition proceedings, has been shown
to
have financial links to institutions and individuals whose wrongdoings have
been exposed by WikiLeaks, the organisation which Mr. Assange
founded.[xxxviii] This seemingly clear conflict of interest was, however,
not disclosed by the District Judge. District Judge Arbuthnot did not
recuse
herself and was permitted to make rulings to Mr. Assange's detriment,
despite the perceived lack of judicial impartiality and independence.
District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Michael Snow has further exhibited
bias
and unprofessionalism by participating in the defamation of Mr. Assange's
character, labelling the multi-award-winning public interest publisher and
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee a "narcissist who cannot get beyond his own
selfish interests" in response, ironically, to Mr. Assange's legal team
raising what were patently legitimate concerns regarding bias in the
proceedings.[xxxix]
2. Inequality of Arms
Mr. Assange has been denied time and facilities to prepare his defence in
violation of the principle of equality of arms which is inherent to the
presumption of innocence and the rule of law.After his arrest, the British
police did not allow Mr. Assange to collect and take his belongings with
him.[xl] Subsequently, Mr. Assange was deprived of his reading glasses for
several weeks.[xli] Until end of June 2020 he was also denied access to a
computer. While a computer has now been provided it is without internet
access and read only, preventing the possibility of Mr. Assange typing any
notes thus being entirely unsuitable for the preparation of his defence.
Mr.
Assange was furthermore denied access to the indictment itself for several
weeks after it had been presented, while his access to other legal
documents
remains limited to this day due to the bureaucracy and lack of
confidentiality involved in prison correspondence. Furthermore, despite the
complexity of the case and the severity of the sentence that Mr. Assange
would face if extradited to be tried in the U.S., prison authorities are
failing to ensure that Mr. Assange can properly consult with his legal team
and prepare for his defence, by severely restricting both the frequency and
duration of his legal visits. Since mid-March 2020, Mr. Assange has
altogether not been able to meet in person with his lawyers.The effects of
the torture to which Mr. Assange has been subjected have further limited
his
ability to prepare his defence and, at times during proceedings, even to
answer basic questions, such as questions about his name and date of
birth.[xlii] While further hearings have been delayed until September, it
is
unclear whether this will enable Mr. Assange the necessary time and
resources to prepare his defence, since he is unable to communicate with
his
lawyers (due to his imprisonment during the pandemic) apart from being
given
limited concessions for a limited period of time, i.e. phone calls
restricted to 10 minutes.
3. Denial of the defendant's ability to properly follow proceedings and
direct his legal team
Mr. Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly informed the Court of his
inability to properly follow proceedings, to consult with his lawyers
confidentially and to properly instruct them in the presentation of his
defence due to his being prevented from sitting with them and being
confined
to a bulletproof glass box. The arrangement has forced Mr. Assange to
resort
to waving to get the attention of the judge or the people sitting in the
public gallery, in order to alert his lawyers who are seated in the
courtroom with their backs to him. Although District Judge Vanessa
Baraitser
accepted that the decision as to whether Mr. Assange should be allowed to
sit with his lawyers was within her powers, yet she refused to exercise her
power in Mr. Assange's favour, despite the prosecution having made no
objection to the application. Amnesty International has expressed concerns
that if adequate measures are not in place at further hearings to ensure
Mr.
Assange's effective participation in, and thereby the fairness of, the
proceedings would be impaired.[xliii]
4. Refusal to address mistreatment of the defendant
Mr. Assange's lawyers informed the Court that during a single day, on 22
February, prison authorities handcuffed him 11 times, placed him in 5
different cells, strip-searched him twice, and confiscated his privileged
legal documents. Overseeing the proceedings, District Judge Vanessa
Baraitser explicitly refused to intervene with prison authorities claiming
that she has no jurisdiction over his prison conditions. This oppressive
treatment has rightly been condemned by The International Bar Association's
Human Rights Institute.[xliv] Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, branded it
a
"serious undermining of due process and the rule of law."[xlv] Further,
international psychiatrists and psychologists have cited this as further
evidence of psychological torture.[xlvi]
We remind the UK government that the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone
of democracy and the rule of law. It is a basic human right enshrined in
Art. 10 UDHR, Art. 14 ICCPR, Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 6 HRA. These provisions,
along with long-standing common law principles, demand a fair and public
hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty, the right to be informed promptly and in
detail of the nature and cause of the charges, the right to be provided
with
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one's defence, and the
right to have the ability to communicate with one's counsel.
For all these reasons we respectfully request that the UK government bring
an end to the U.S. extradition proceedings against Mr. Assange and ensure
his immediate release from custody.
Yours sincerely,
Lawyers for Assange
Signatories
Collective Signatories