Photograph of Julian Assange taking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, England, in 2013.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is on the verge of being released after five years in detention in the UK. He reached a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in exchange for pleading guilty to violating espionage laws in exchange for the U.S. Department of Justice not seeking extradition. On Wednesday, after completing the court process, he will return to his native Australia, thus ending the 14-year-old legal battle. UN News interviewed the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Gil Edwards, to comment on the outcome of the case and its possible implications.
EDWARDS: This protracted case has had its ups and downs, and in my opinion, it's a very good outcome for Mr. Assange. I welcome his release and the negotiated resolution of his case. I believe that countries have reached a reasonable solution to this case. Mr. Assange has pleaded guilty to a number of crimes. He served five years in Belmarsh Prison, which I think is already enough punishment.
Now, many rights advocates will argue that there is no legal basis for the accusation against Assange. However, I think that, given the twists and turns, this is actually the best possible outcome in terms of law and politics.
UN News: From a human rights perspective, how do you think this case will affect the overall situation of Mr. Assange and other whistleblowers?
Edwards: This is a particularly complex case. The government has the right to maintain a certain degree of secrecy, especially with regard to diplomatic and military telegraphs.
However, this level of secrecy enjoyed by the Government to protect the public and national security does not extend to the disclosure of war crimes or any other human rights violations. Democracies should be held accountable, and their people should have the capacity for that accountability. Democracies are accountable to their people, which requires freedom of the press and oversight of the press. These are the pillars of democracy.
UN News: Will this case set a precedent for similar cases? What are the similarities and differences between this case and other similar cases?
Edwards: The real challenge is that the United States has a very old Espionage Act from 1917. Given the complexity of this case, I encourage the United States to update its espionage and extradition laws to be fully human-friendly, including the types of penalties that can be applied, as well as protections for journalists and whistleblowers.
People should not, and should never be, extradited to places where they may face torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, including punishments disproportionate to any alleged crime that may have been committed.
The United States must take these crimes uncovered by Mr. Assange seriously and investigate and prosecute them appropriately.
Impunity for war crimes and other violations of the laws of war only emboldens the perpetrators.
I think if this case has helped to promote any positive developments, it is to see the United States prosecute cases of impunity.
UN News: How do you assess the reason for this decision in Mr. Assange's case to be based on human rights considerations? Has this been taken into account?
Edwards: In the field of human rights, we don't often celebrate successes or victories. So I think it's very comforting for a lot of activists and advocates around the world because they realize that the pressure on human rights grounds actually has an impact.
The political context of a case often exists, but when it comes to human rights, it requires a rigorous, independent scrutiny, independent of political considerations.
So, as I said, you know, if this case can change anything, it seems to me that what really needs to change is legislative reform to more forcefully strengthen the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to ensure that these extradition laws have appropriate safeguards for the protection of journalists and whistleblowers – and espionage as well – and to ensure that there are four different sets of potential crimes in the documents leaked by Mr. Assange that are now properly investigated and prosecuted.
UN News: Does the UN have the necessary foundational tools to protect human rights? Are there the necessary legal bodies to protect whistleblowers like Mr. Assange?
Edwards: I think there is a legal framework that applies. The Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights all provide strong legal frameworks, among others.
I do believe that there needs to be some reform within the country to better reflect human rights standards. This should apply.
In closing, I would like to say that families are always involved in these lengthy prosecutions, and I have sympathy for Stella Assange and her children.
Their families may also have suffered immensely during these trials, and now they will be able to live peacefully in Australia.
