Protect Julian Assange's human rights and stop the extradition.
Protect Julian Assange's human rights and stop the extradition.
As of today, 14 June 2012, the UK Supreme Court has rejected Julian Assange's application to re-appeal.
Spending over 500 days in house arrest, he appeal to the High Courts and the UK Supreme Court, after 3 months of debating the validity of the European Arrest Warrant and whether or not the Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sweden, dismissing Assange's appeal.
But his QC Dinah Rose, ask for reopening of the case because of the raised a point which was able to delay his extradition and potentially reopen the case as a whole. Since the decision was based on interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - something not brought up during the February proceedings - Ms Rose argued that the defence hadn't the chance to properly contest the point.
With the application rejected, he now faces extradition in 14 days, his final appeal is to the European Court of Human Rights.
The issue is not only the abuse of the European Arrest Warrant, issuing for sake of questioning and not for prosecution, but also the fact that his human rights are risk, due not being charged and possibly being face with extradition to the US, where he may face the death penalty, keep in mind that he has not been charged in Sweden or the US or any country. We need to persuade our leaders to learn about Julian Assange, support him, and protect his human rights.
To the Council of Europe,
Update: As of 14 June 2012, the UK Supreme Court has rejected Julian Assange's application to re-appeal.
I want to express my severe concern on another issue that needs to be immediately addressed and supported.
The issue of the European Arrest Warrant, has been an debatable one. But with the cases of Cor Disselkoen, Gerry Mann and Andrew Symeou and Deborah Dark, Julian Assange is another person that can added on to the list.
While the European Arrest Warrant was established to be used as a fast track system for extraditions within the EU, for the prosecution. In the case of Julian Assange, the EAW has been misused, primarily over the fact that the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, whether she was a "judicial authority". On 30 May 2012, after 3 months of the debating over whether the judicial authority meant court or judge; the UK Supreme Court stated that in the French translation, "authorité judicial." can be a public prosecutor since the word has a wider meaning than the English phrase. The UKSC ruled in favor of the extradition because of that, dismissing Mr. Assange's appeal.
There's has been a lot of questioning of the EAW's validity since it was issued for the arrest of Julian Assange back in 2010. One is that the warrant was sent by Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, (not a judicial authority) in which the facts about the EAW were laid out, the EAW is sent between judicial authorities. Stated below:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/57/569e9fee.pdf (page 1)
But the main problem is the negligence and abuse of the EAW was used for in Assange's case, in which the UK Supreme Court has forgotten about. Instead of issued normally for the purposes of prosecution for a offense, in Assange's case, it was issued for questioning in which, according to Swedish Supreme Court and under the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (2000:562), she could have done the questioning over video-link (Skype, etc) or over the telephone or just traveling to where the subject is to complete it (since the subject is under house arrest). As stated in the links below:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15268 (Under the Requests to Sweden according to the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act)
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/69/d6080427.pdf (Under Chapter 5, pg. 15)
Despite all cooperations from Mr. Assange, his legal team and both Swedish and British law, Ms. Ny has mislead the Swedish public stating that "Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London." to this day, she has not cooperated with Assange nor his legal team. As stated below:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf (pages 15-17).
As commended by Thomas Hammarberg, "The EAW has been used in cases for which it was not intended, sometimes with harsh consequences on the lives of the persons concerned. It is thus high time to reform a system that affects thousands of persons every year." This is leaves an alarming effect to all the European citizens that they can be extradited for questioning without being charged and making unclear on who the judicial authority is in countries of the EU.
There are reasons why Mr. Assange is fighting extradition mainly over the purpose that Sweden has a bilateral agreement between the US, which allows Mr. Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden. Once there, his human rights are at risk, he faces kidnapping, torture and execution.
Mr. Assange's legal team has also argued that if extradited to Sweden, he'll not only be detained indefinitely (despite not being charged). He would also be held in incommunicado except for his lawyers. And that if there is a trial, it will be a secret one and he will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, instead there will be lay judges who are appointed by political parties and no formal legal training.
As his legal team reappeal to the UKSC and possibly submit their application to the European Court of Human Rights, as they decide whether or not to take the case. This is something that immediately needs to be act upon right away as his protection and his human rights are at risk. I ask of you to work with Assange's legal team to achieve the following goals:
1.Reforming the EAW: by reinstating who can issued it by the judicial authorities by countries in the EU and strictly issuing on prosecution purposes only.
2. Cooperation: of the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny that since she issued the EAW for question that she does the questioning by videolink, telephone or travel to where Mr. Assange is as stated in the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, in the link below
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/52/68/db667afc.pdf (page 1-2).
And that the surrender may not be granted since it would contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or the supplementary Protocols to the Convention applying as law in Sweden; as stated under Section 4 in the Act (2003:1156) on surrender from Sweden according to the European Arrest Warrant. Link below:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/57/569e9fee.pdf (page 3)
3. Protection of his Human Rights: That if he goes to Sweden, that he will not be extradited to another country where the death penalty would be imposed upon as stated in The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act under Section 7
"A person may not be extradited if, on account of his origin, belonging to a particular social group, his religious or political views, or otherwise on account of political circumstances, he would run the risk of being subjected in the foreign state to persecution which is directed against his life or liberty or is otherwise of a harsh nature, or if he does not enjoy protection against being sent to a state in which he would run such a risk."
4. A Right to a Fair trial: That if he goes to Sweden, that under the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6: that he will be:
(a) informed promptly, in the English language of everything including the nature and accusation against him.
to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Keep in mind that he has not been charged in Sweden or the U.S or any other country.
In closing, I call on you to actively take up the case and immediately make contact with Mr. Assange and his legal team to reach the urgent goals above and a good faith effort to end the abuse of the EAW for the sake of Europe's future.
I look forward to your response,