jan tervonen

Wednesday marks an important day this week. That is when the Supreme Court hands down its judgment in the now infamous case of Mr Julian Assange. Now people are asking: what will happen in this case? If the Supreme Court rules in Assange’s favour, where will he go? On the other hand, if Assange loses, will he be immediately extradited to Sweden?

This is what most likely will happen:

In the case of winning, Mr Assange will immediately board a flight to Australia. This is because even if he wins it doesn’t necessarily mean that Sweden will withdraw the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on him. If the EAW remains in force, Assange would face the risk of arrest if entering any other European country. On the other hand, Assange is more than afraid of an extradition request by the USA being filed. Australia, his homeland, would be the best bet for him. However, by no means is Australia to be considered a safe haven for Assange, although his strategy appears to have been to create a favourable atmosphere for him over there. Indeed, if USA would file an extradition request to Australia, the seriousness of the allegations would most likely place Mr Assange into prison for years. As it turns out, in Australia a fully exhausted appeal path against extradition could drag on for approximately 7 years. While bail is always a possibility, it is rarely used due to a very difficult applicable test commonly referred to as Cabal.

On the other hand, if Assange loses, his legal team will file an urgent application for interim measures under Rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent his extradition pending appeal. Based on Assange’s behaviour so far, it is reasonable to expect that he will appeal to the ECHR. While Rule 39 is commonly used in deportation and extradition cases to prevent irreversible damage, it is never used lightly. If ECHR would grant the sought measures, it could stop Assange’s extradition until the final judgment in his appeal is handed down. In Abu Hamza’s case the use of Rule 39 caused a delay of 2 years. 

With great curiosity I’ve been following the extradition battle of Mr. Julian Assange, including everything directly/indirectly related to it. Mr. Assange’s attempt to affect the general opinion about the extradition proceeding he is made subject to is not bordering on surreal anymore. This is because it is surreal.

It appears that Mr. Assange has orchestrated a massive campaign, which is split into two overlapping paths - both lacking any merit. The first one concentrates on the alleged flaws in the extradition proceeding that being the mechanism of the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”). The second one brings up the alleged “conspiracy” behind the request to get him to face rape allegations in Sweden.

1^st PATH

Mr. Assanges publicity attack against EAW appears to be mainly based on the fact that he is not “charged of anything” per se. Mr. Assange’s error of judgment is probably in that he is interpreting “charged” under the laws of UK. This is a moot point due to the differences in legal systems within Europe. Mr. Assange must be very well aware of this and so must, at least, all the lawyers supporting him.

Mr. Assange also seem to claim that there is something “wrong” in an extradition mechanism in which the courts of the requested country cannot review the merits of the case presented by the requesting country. Again, Mr. Assange’s argument is empty and is not supported by single authority. Extradition is not about innocence or guilt. The merits of the case are for the requesting country and its courts to determine. Very recently, the Court of Appeals (2^nd circuit) in the USA stated among others, “It is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation. Such an assumption would directly conflict with the principle of comity upon which extradition is based.” (citing Jhirad, 536 F.2d at 484–85) and “… U.S. courts are strongly discouraged from reviewing whether the demanding country has complied with its own law and, indeed, it is error to do so except to the limited extent necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable extradition treaty ...” Even though the case cited is not directly a binding authority for Mr. Assange’s process, some analogy (which goes against him) can be drawn from it to his position.

2^nd Path

Secondly and unsurprisingly, there is zero evidence of the alleged “conspiracy”. For some unexplained reason it has always been part of Mr. Assange’s defense that the allegations of rape are the first step in a mysterious “conspiracy” steered by some 3-letter American organization which first wants to get him to Sweden. Mr. Assange’s imaginary theory continues that it would then somehow be very easy to get him to America, where in turn he would then be charged, tried and even face the death penalty. This “conspiracy” is a fantasy not born in a rationally thinking brain. While it might be quicker to get someone extradited from Sweden than from UK (due to the differences in the legal systems), it cannot be said that the difference is that great that it would (rationally thinking) make any sense to create the alleged very complex conspiracy with fake allegations of rape and fake EAW’s issued by the Swedish prosecutor.

What the public would like to know is: who is paying for the legal teams fighting for Mr. Assange? Could it be Wikileaks? If yes, why?

On 19.12.2011 an article was published in Sydney Morning Herald, which refers to an open letter directed to the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Mr. Kevin Rudd. It appears that the Minister is being urged to "help" alleged rapist and sexual predator Mr. Julian Assange currently on bail in the UK, where he is waiting to be extradited to Sweden.