Justice

“UN-expert opinion Assange is not binding”

A UN panel has to deal with Wikileaks founder Assange as the arbitrary detention rates. This was primarily a political weight, says scholar of international law Björn Schiffbauer in the DW-Interview.

DW: The case of Wikileaks-founder Julian Assange has after a longer standstill is picking up again: The UN working group for arbitrary arrests has your assessment submitted. It keeps the handling of Julian Assange is illegal. Is the verdict from Geneva in any way binding for the Swedes and the Brits?

Björn Schiffbauer: It is not a court order. Binding is not so. It is the legal opinion of a panel of experts, namely the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, short WGAD. That certainly has political weight. Probably this is exactly why the WGAD called. However, binding under international law, the legal consequences can be from this Rechtseinschätzung not be derived.

Considered the case of Assange under international law: Björn Schiffbauer

What are the main arguments of the working group?

I have the 17 pages of the report read. A legal discussion is only on the last four pages. Before that, especially with the backgrounds and opinions of Julian Assange, Sweden, and the UK played. The legal arguments I have – frankly – it does not really can be found. The opinion of the WGAD starts from two premises, but not clearly derived. First, that the residence of Julian Assanges in the Embassy of Ecuador at all to a deprivation of liberty in question. But the fact that it is actually a deprivation of liberty is, in the opinion, no further justification. The second is not further substantiated premise is that Julian Assange, the Status of asylum seekers have, since he is in the Embassy of Ecuador present. Also this would have some explaining can.

A reproach of the reviewer is that the Swedish Prosecutor had the procedure taken, because they are very long not to a questioning of Assange in London was ready. How is this to be assessed?

I am doing here with the accusations of Verfahrensverschleppung difficult, because for Julian Assange, it would have been Easy for the procedure in Sweden and there to make the statement. Which would probably be very quickly brought to an end. It exists for no state has the duty to someone, the accused can be heard, in a different country to visit. Since then even the other two States involved agree to have – namely, the UK and Ecuador. Hoheitsausübungen on foreign territory in international law is unusual.

In the past five years, has the Swedish Prosecutor’s office but in about 40 cases, interviews in England conducted. So you have exactly used this procedure.

This is certainly an Argument that this procedure in a not so good light. Purely legally it is but this: Even if it is a practice to give such a procedure, one can derive no legal obligation can be derived. Still, it Sure would have been Sweden, here’s a happier way to choose.

The judgment of the UN body brings movement in the case Assange – and on the street in front of the Embassy

Yes we must once again hold: It was still no charge. The procedure is in the stage of Vorermittlungen. Meanwhile, in the UK, the legal situation changed. Now for the execution of a European arrest warrant already issued indictments.

I have the opinion so taken. If it is assumed that this is so, then for future arrest warrants and not for those who have in the past been adopted. This amendment had no retroactive effect. It is not unusual that amendments of the law only for the future and not the past to apply. I can, of course, from the point of view of Julian Assange very well understand that he is upset that, under the circumstances as they now prevail, an extradition to Sweden may be difficult or not possible at all.

Julian Assange will give a reason why he is not in the hands of the Swedish judicial system go wants: He has a concern, then extradited to the United States.

This fear, of course, is not unwarranted. It is no secret that the United States have an interest in, against Julian Assange criminal act. But there is, to date, no extradition request from the USA what Julian Assange is concerned, neither in the UK nor in Sweden. So is any Reflection of how the proceedings go on is highly speculative. But: Both the UK and Sweden are the European Convention on human rights obliged. And after that, deliveries to States is forbidden, where potentially the death penalty. Because I see very good chances for Julian Assange, against a Auslieferungsbegehren of the United States to take legal action.

Dr. Björn Schiffbauer is an expert on international law at the University of Cologne