JULIAN ASSANGE ON HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
was quite unlucky as the Appellate High Court in U.K. reversed the judgment of the District Judge Ms. Baraister who opined that Assange’s mental condition was such that it would be “oppressive to extradite him because of the harsh conditions in which he was likely to be detained” and discharged him on that lone ground; however, she rejected all the other grounds he raised that – “i) The US-UK Extradition Treaty forbids extradition for political offences with the consequence that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case; ii) The allegations …… did not meet the dual criminality test found in section 137 of the 2003 Act; iii) Extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time pursuant to section 82 of the 2003 Act; iv) Extradition is barred by reason of extraneous considerations by virtue of section 81(a) and (b) of the 2003 Act; v) Extradition is barred by section 87 of the 2003 Act because it would breach the Convention by violating article 6 (denial of a fair trial), article 7 (expose Mr Assange to a novel and unforeseeable extension of US law) and article 10 (right to freedom of expression). The judge concluded that she did not need to decide an argument that extradition would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention given her conclusion on section 91; vi) The extradition request is an abuse of process because it proceeds on a misrepresentation of the facts and because the prosecution is being pursued for an ulterior political motive and is not brought in good faith.” The appellate Court opined that – “the DJ, having decided that the threshold for discharge under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 was met, ought to have notified the USA of her provisional view, to afford it the opportunity to offer assurances to the court; and b. the USA has now provided the United Kingdom with a package of assurances which respond to the DJ’s specific findings.” – the court rejected various criticisms of those assurances, and was satisfied that “the assurances [no vengeful treatment, fair trial, if convicted opportunity of transfer to Australian prisons, etc.] were sufficient to meet the concerns which led to the DJ’s decision. The court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered that the case must be remitted to Westminster Magistrates’ Court with a direction that a DJ send the case to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether Mr Assange should be extradited to the USA.” Well, in this case freedom of speech and expression is in grave danger as Assange is persecuted for mere publication of details of US-NATO war crimes [amounting to crimes against humanity]. Very sad that on this Human Rights Day (10-12-2021) the Court facilitated his extradition to the U.S. for facing charges which could keep him in jail for 175 years! Though a further appeal is open to him, ultimately it is popular pressure and agitation the world over that can avert this catastrophe. §§§
No comments:
Post a Comment