[News:] U.S. prosecution seeking Assange extradition relies on ‘sad litany’ of human rights abuse cases, court hears

(London, U.K.) Prosecution lawyers seeking to extradite Julian Assange to the United States have relied on case law used to argue for the execution of a Jamaican man without due process, in addition to a “sad litany” of other human rights abuse cases, a court in London has heard.

The revelations came during the third day of hearings taking place at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court where lawyers for and against Assange wrangled over whether the allegations the WikiLeaks publisher faces constitute political offences.

The matter will be a central one to the outcome of the proceedings and to whether Assange is in fact extradited as the U.S.-U.K. treaty which governs the extradition process contains safeguards against such crimes.

Article 4(1) of the Anglo-U.S. Extradition Treaty of 2003 states that: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.”

Lawyers for Assange, led by Edward Fitzgerald QC, told the court that the safeguards against extradition for political crimes were a fundamental part of the international covenants governing such cases.

“The protections around political crimes are regarded throughout the world as a fundamental part of those countries’ international agreements,” Fitzgerald said. “In fact, they are considered so important by the United States that this protection is in nearly every one of their extradition treaties.”

He went on to say that the protections were used by virtually every extradition treaty around the world, and were included in the U.N. model for extradition treaties.

Fitzgerald also told the court that all academic and legal authorities on the matter considered espionage to be a political offence. Seventeen of the 18 charges that Assange faces are related to the Espionage Act of 1917.

Lawyers for Assange also argued that the remaining charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should also be considered political because it is linked to the leak of confidential documents by Chelsea Manning.

James Lewis QC, on behalf of the U.S. government, argued however, that Assange should not be afforded the safeguards for political offences because the protection was not included in the U.K.’s Extradition Act of 2003 that was distinct from the treaty.

He relied upon Norris vs. USA from 2010 and used that piece of case law among others to argue that the political offence exception has been abolished due to its absence from the legislation.

The cases were also used to argue that the treaty in question did not confer Assange any protections from abuse of process arguments in extradition hearings because the treaty had yet to be signed into domestic law.

Similarly, Lewis also argued that protections offered under the European Convention on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law did not apply because case law defined them to be outside of the court’s jurisdiction.

Fitzgerald, however, told the court that it is wholly inconsistent to disregard international law because international treaties such as those on extradition are dependent on their authority.

In reference to cases such as Neville Lewis vs. the Attorney General of Jamaica 2001, where the Jamaican national had his human rights violated and was tortured while on death row, Fitzgerald told the court that the prosecution in the Assange hearings relied upon the same case law that was used to argue for Neville’s execution.

“The whole sad litany of cases abdicating any responsibility for international law are all cited by my learned friend,” Fitzgerald said.

Additional resources: