Extradition of Julian Assange: "The 180 degree turn of British justice"

The founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange, then at the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador in London, May 19, 2017. AFP - JUSTIN TALLIS

Text by: Sylvie Noël Follow

4 min

The High Court of Justice in London overturned the refusal at first instance to extradite the founder of WikiLeaks.

He is being prosecuted by the American justice system for espionage after having published secret documents.

This decision paves the way for his extradition to the United States, but all remedies are not exhausted.

Analysis of this decision with Olivier Tesquet, co-author of the book

(Éditions Actes Sud) and journalist at Télérama, specialist in digital issues

Advertising

Read more

RFI: What analysis do you make of this decision of the High Court of Justice in London?

Olivier Tesquet:

This is a decision that is a 180-degree turn compared to the one that had been rendered at first instance in January, since at that time, the judge had estimated that due to his condition health, particularly his psychological state of health, Julian Assange could not be extradited to the United States.

However, today's decision [Friday, December 10] opens the way for an extradition, we are in a way back to square one, and it is obviously a big setback for Assange and for his entourage.

You say that the decision of this Friday opens the way to an extradition, because indeed it is not the end of this judicial saga ...

Absolutely.

This case is referred to a tribunal which at a subsequent hearing will have to re-examine its case.

If the extradition request was confirmed, Julian Assange could go before the British Supreme Court, and if the justice had to decide to reverse this authorization, the American authorities would also be entitled to appeal " 

 ", to keep French terminology. , in the case of this procedure.

► 

There is a turnaround, but all is not therefore lost for Julian Assange?

So all is not lost, but for all that we have someone who is detained in a high security prison without having been tried, without having appeared in court during a trial.

And this since April 2019 when he was forcibly extracted from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and we can see that this detention costs him physically and psychologically.

The risk of suicide was also one of the arguments of his lawyers to oppose his extradition ...

Absolutely, and that is the only reason that had prompted the judge at first instance to refuse the extradition. That is, the judge never said Julian Assange could not be extradited because the US process was political, or because it was null and void. The only reason that led the judge to oppose the extradition at first instance was that Julian Assange presented a significant risk of suicide if he were to be extradited to the United States. So indeed, we have had a procedure that has dragged on since April 2019. We can imagine that all this will keep us busy for a few months, or even a few years. And during that time, Julian Assange remains in custody.

The guarantees provided by the American side on the treatment which would be reserved for him in the United States could they influence the decision of the High Court of London

In any case, this is what is invoked by the High Court of Justice in London to justify its decision. It is because there were indeed written guarantees which were provided by the American authorities, in particular that Julian Assange would not be incarcerated in a prison baptized “ 

 ”, in particular that of Florence in Colorado, that the 'one calls the " 

 ", that it would also not be subjected to certain measures which were taken after September 11, which singularly hamper the relation between a client and his lawyer and which aim in general dangerous terrorists.

They promised that Julian Assange could serve his sentence if he were to be sentenced in Australia, his home country, and that he would receive the necessary care if his mental health required it.

But his lawyers have said, and repeated during the hearings, that they do not believe in these promises because they argue that this procedure is a judicial persecution, and that Julian Assange faces 175 years in prison, it must be remembered, for one. activity which is journalistic activity.

So under these conditions, the promises as they may have been formulated, ultimately, are not taken seriously by a number of defenders of Julian Assange.

► 

Newsletter

Receive all international news directly in your mailbox

I subscribe

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

google-play-badge_FR

• UK

• Justice

• WikiLeaks

• United States