THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE

THE CASE OF
JULIAN ASSANGE
Presented by:- Anushka Singh
BBA-LLB (7TH Semester) 2018-23
School of Law, Sharda University
Under subject- Public International Law

Before moving onto the case I would briefly
explain the concepts involved in the case.
•Extradition
•Asylum

The term extradition has derived from two Latin words ex and traditum. Ordinarily, it may mean ‘delivery
of criminals’, ‘surrender of fugitives’ or ‘handover of fugitives’. Extradition may be defined as the
surrender of an accused or a convicted person by the State on whose territory he is found to the State on
whose territory he is alleged to have committed or to have been convicted of a crime.
According to Oppenheim extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted
individual to the State where he is accused of or has been convicted of, a crime, by the
State on whose territory he happens for the time to be.

NEED AND
PURPOSE OF
EXTRADITION
Each State exercises complete jurisdiction over all the persons within its
territory. But sometimes there may be cases when a person after
committing crime runs away to another country. In such a situation the
country affected finds itself helpless to exercise jurisdiction to punish the
guilty person. This situation is undoubtedly very detrimental for peace
and order. There is a social need to punish such criminals and in order to
fulfil this social necessity the principle of extradition has been recognised.
The country in which he has committed the crime may try him differently. It may also
be the case that he had absconded or run away in the middle of legal proceedings.
Thus it is essential to bring him back in order to finish the trial. The evidence and the
witnesses are also present in that country.
This is also to prevent the trend of international
criminals. Some criminals hop from country to country
committing crimes. Through extraditions, justice can be
brought by bringing them back to the countries they
have committed the crime and punishing them.

SOME COMMON CONCEPTS IN EXTRADITION
No extradition of a Political Criminal- The trend of no extradition of political criminals started during the French
revolution. After that, other countries followed suit. No commission or organization has defined what a political
crime is. This word is also not defined under international law.
Rule of Speciality- The doctrine of speciality is a doctrine under international law. It states that a person who is
extradited to a country to stand trial for certain criminal offences may be tried only for those offences and not for
any other pre-extradition offences. (U.S. vs Rauscher (1886)
Double criminality - Double criminality is a principle that states that a criminal can only be extradited to another country if the
offence he has committed is criminalized by the laws of both the countries involved. For example, if a murderer has run away from
Bangladesh and is hiding in India, he can be extradited as the laws of both the countries criminalize murder.
Position of the State in International Law- It must be noted that the state has no duty to extradite an
individual. But, there can be a treaty between that states that they will extradite any criminals that run away
to their country and vice versa. They can also voluntarily extradite a person without any treaty. States should
keep in mind that during extradition, they should not violate their own municipal laws i.e- the laws of their
own countries and international conventions. However, countries do not have to give the fugitive back if
proper extradition procedure was not followed. (Savarkar Case, 1911, France v the UK)

EXTRADITION
IN INDIA
Usually, each country has its own laws regarding the
process of extradition. In India, The Extradition Act of
1962 governs the process of extradition. It was amended
in 1993 by Act 66. Usually, requests for extradition on
behalf of India can only be made by the Ministry of
External Affairs and not anyone in the public
According to the page of The Ministry of External Affairs, below are the following
bars or restrictions to extradition-
•India is not ‘obliged’ to extradite someone unless there is a treaty.
•India is not ‘obliged’ to extradite someone unless that offence constitutes a
crime under the treaty.
•Extradition may be denied for purely political and military offences.
•The offence must constitute a crime in both India and the country requesting
extradition.
•Extradition may be denied when the procedure set down by Section 3(4) of the

ASYLUM
The term ‘Asylum’ has been
derived from a Greek word
whose Latin counterpart is
‘Asylon’ and it means
‘freedom from seizure’. The
term is referred to those
cases where the territorial
State declines to surrender a
person to the requesting
state and provides shelter
and protection in its own
territory.
Thus asylum involves
two elements, firstly, a
shelter which is more
than a temporary refuge;
and secondly, a degree of
active protection on the
part of the authorities in
control of the territory of
asylum.
Historically the concept
of asylum is very old and
traditional and is
opposite to the notice of
extradition. Where the
traditional hospitality is
not offered to an alien,
the act is known as
extradition.
Asylum is when a
country gives protection
to individuals who are
being prosecuted by
another sovereign
authority. Most of the
times, it is their own
government. While
everyone has the right to
seek asylum, asylum
seekers do not have the
right to receive it.

TYPES OF ASSYLUM
Territorial Asylum-
Territorial asylum is
granted within the
territorial boundaries of
the country offering
asylum. This is most
commonly used for
accused of offences of
political nature such as
treason and sedition.
Extra-Territorial or Diplomatic
Asylum- Extraterritorial asylum
refers to asylum granted in
embassies, legations, consulates,
warships, and merchant vessels in
foreign territory and is thus
within the territory of the state
which protection is sought.
International law has not
diplomatic asylum as a right as it
Neutral Asylum- This
type of asylum is shown
neutral states during
of war. These countries
may be considered
places for prisoners of
It provides asylum to
troops of countries who
are a part of the war.
If an individual, ‘A’ from Syria comes to Turkey and
applies for asylum due to the horrifying condition in
Syria and apprehension of danger to his life. If the
individual is granted by the Turkey government
within the country itself, it is an example of
Territorial asylum.
If ‘A’ from Syria
approaches the US
Embassy in Syria for grant
of Asylum due to
imminent danger to his
life. If the US Embassy
grants the Asylum, it
becomes an example of
Extra-Territorial Asylum.

ASSYLUM IN INDIA
Different countries have different laws about asylum-seeking. India has laws regarding immigration and
asylum-seeking. The most recent law with asylum seeking that has caused the most controversy is
the Citizen Amendment Act with regards to refugees. Organisations like the UNHCR, help individuals
register for asylum. People who wish to apply must come for registration with all of your family members
who are present in India.
According to them, the following documents are needed-
•Case numbers of immediate family members who have been
registered with UNHCR (in India or elsewhere),
•Passport/nationality document/identity document,
•Birth certificates/vaccination cards for children,
•Marriage/divorce/death certificates,
•Any other documents you may have.
The candidate will be asked to explain why you left your country and why you cannot go back on a form.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTRADITION AND ASYLUM
Extradition is needed
when an individual
charged with a crime
in one state flees to
another. In this case,
the requesting state
requests its citizen to
be sent back so that
he/she can stand trial
for their crimes.
Asylum is when a
person, who is afraid
of being prosecuted
in his home state,
runs away to another
state for protection.
In the case
of Colombia vs Peru
(1950), it was held by
the court that they
are exclusive. There is
either extradition or
asylum.
Starke has stated that
asylum stops where
extradition begins.
Extradition and
Asylum are political
acts of States and it
differs from state to
state depending upon
treaties, internal and
external policies.
Extradition and
Asylum both have
pros and cons before
taking any decision
States should vividly
ponder on their
decisions.

ASYLUM EXTRADITION
1. Asylum can be defined as a shelter(more than a
temporary) as well as active protection which is
provided to a political refugee by a state to which a
person seeking shelter and protection.
1. Extradition is the formal process where by a state
requests from the requested state the return of a
person accused or convicted of a crime to stand trial or
serve a sentence in the requesting state.
2. A sovereign state has a right to give asylum to any
person seeking political asylum.
2. Extradition is not a right of a sovereign state from
which the political criminal escapes
3. Asylum does not depends on the nature of the crime
of person seeking asylum
3. A criminal shall not be surrendered to other state if
the offence of the criminal is of political nature.
4. It relates between a sovereign state and an individual 4. It is related to agreement or treaty between two
sovereign states.
5. Asylum is simple process compare to extradition 5. Extradition is a complex process compare to asylum
6. Asylum may be territorial or diplomatic 6. There is no such classification in case of extradition

ABOUT JULIAN ASSANGE
Julian Paul Assange, born on 3rd July 1971 is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who
founded WikiLeaks in 2006. He firstly appeared on the hacking scene in 1987 under the alias
“Mendax” as part of the group “International Subversives”. In 1991, after hacking into Nortel
Telecommunications Company, he was discovered and phone tapped by the Australian
Federal Police. Few months later, he was arrested and charged with a total of thirty-one
counts. Ultimately, in December 1996 he was ordered to pay reparations of $2100 with no jail
time due to his activities not being for personal gain or malice.
2006 is the year Julian Assange founded Wikileaks; an open-source website which provides a
collection of sensitive governmental documents. During this period material started pilling in
Wikileaks which until 2009 was far away from the global spotlight in the vastness of the
internet. Turning-point was the year 2010 when Wikileaks published “Collateral Murder”. An
until then classified video of a US military operation in Afghanistan along with classified US
Military Reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.
After the aforementioned publications on Wikileaks, it was widely reported that the US had
launched an investigation on Wikileaks with prosecutors trying to build a case against Julian
Assange accusing him of violations of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act of 1986. Although, the fact that Julian Assange was not the leak of the information
but rather the recipient who disseminated them is crucial since he falls under First
Amendment’s strong protections of speech and press freedoms.

Julian Assange is an Australian editor, publisher, and founder of
WikiLeaks who was accused of a rape case and a molestation case by
the Sweden government. The Sweden government had filed for the
extradition of Assange and the UK Supreme Court had ordered for his
extradition to Sweden in May 2012. In June 2012, he was granted
asylum in England at the Embassy of Ecuador.
The reason was given that his human rights would be violated if he is
sent to Sweden. In 2015 Sweden dropped the charges against
Assange. In February 2012, the UN declared that he had been
‘arbitrarily detained’ by the Ecuador embassy. In May 2019 he was
sentenced for 50 weeks jail for breaching bail conditions.
He has also been accused of committing a crime against the United
States of America by releasing the confidential documents of the
United States of America on his website named ‘WikiLeaks’. The USA
has been trying to extradite him to their country.
SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CASE

TIMELINE OF EVENTS
In August 2010 Julian Assange traveled to
Sweden for the purposes of a lecture on
Wikileaks. In the duration of that month he
had sexual relations with two female
subjects.
18 August 2010- Mr Assange applies for a
residence permit to live and work in Sweden.
He hopes to create a base for Wikileaks there,
because of the country's laws protecting
whistleblowers.
20 August 2010- The Swedish Prosecutor's
Office issues an arrest warrant for Mr Assange
based on allegations of rape and molestation.
Both women reportedly say that what started
as consensual sex became non-consensual.
Wikileaks quotes Mr Assange as saying the
accusations are "without basis" and that their
appearance "at this moment is deeply
disturbing".
21 August 2010- The arrest warrant is
withdrawn. The lawyer for the two women,
Claes Borgstrom, lodges an appeal against this
decision to a special department in the public
prosecutions office.
31 August 2010- Mr Assange is questioned by
police in Stockholm (Capital of Sweden) and
formally told of the allegations against him,
according to his lawyer at the time, Leif
Silbersky. The activist denies the allegations.
1 September 2010- Sweden's Director of
Prosecution Marianne Ny says she
is reopening the rape investigation against Mr
Assange. "Considering information available
at present, my judgement is that the
classification of the crime is rape," she says.

18 October 2010- Mr. Assange
is denied residency in Sweden. No
reason is given, although an
official on Sweden's Migration
Board tells the AFP news agency
"he did not fulfil the
requirements".
18 November 2010- Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr
Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful
coercion. Ms Ny says he has not been available for questioning. By this time Mr
Assange has travelled to London. His British lawyer, Mark Stephens, says his
client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland
Yard or via videolink. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that
Mr Assange return to Sweden.
20 November 2010- Swedish
police issue an international
arrest warrant for Mr Assange via
Interpol.
8 December 2010- The Wikileaks
founder gives himself up to British
police and is taken to
an extradition hearing. He is
remanded in custody pending
another hearing.
16 December 2010- Mr Assange
is granted bail by the High
Court and is freed after his
supporters pay £240,000 in cash
and sureties.
24 February 2011- A British court
rules that Mr Assange should
be extradited to Sweden.
3 March 2011- Lawyers lodge
papers at the High Court for
an appeal against extradition.

2 November 2011- The High Court upholds the
decision to extradite Mr Assange. (Julian Assange
v/s Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC
2849)
5 December 2011- Mr Assange wins the right to
petition the UK Supreme Court directly after judges
rule that his case raised "a question of general
public importance".
30 May 2012- The Supreme Court rules that he
should be extradited to Sweden. (Assange v The
Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22).
19 June 2012- Ecuador's foreign minister says Mr
Assange has applied for political asylum at
Ecuador's embassy in London.
15 August 2012- Ecuador's foreign minister claims
the UK has issued a "threat" to enter the
Ecuadorean embassy in London to arrest Mr
Assange. The Foreign Office says it reminded
Ecuador that it has the power to revoke the
diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil and
says Britain has a legal obligation to extradite him.
16 August 2012- Ecuador grants asylum to Mr
Assange, saying there are fears his human rights
might be violated if he is extradited. Mr Assange
describes it as a "significant victory", but the UK
government expresses its disappointment. From
that day on he has lived within the grounds of the
embassy.

August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors
drop their investigation into two
allegations - one of sexual
molestation and one of unlawful
coercion - because they have run out
of time to question him. But he still
faces the more serious accusation of
rape.
October 2015 - The Metropolitan
Police announces that officers will no
longer be stationed outside the
Ecuadorean embassy.
February 2016 - A UN panel rules that
Mr Assange has been "arbitrarily
detained" by UK and Swedish
authorities since 2010.
May 2017 - Sweden's director of
public prosecutions announces that
the rape investigation into Mr
Assange is being dropped.
July 2018 - The UK and Ecuador
confirm they are holding talks over
the fate of Mr Assange.
October 2018 - Mr Assange is given a
set of house rules by the Ecuadorean
embassy.
October 2018 - It's revealed he is to
launch legal action against the
government of Ecuador - accusing it
of violating his "fundamental rights
and freedoms"

December 2018 - Mr Assange's lawyer rejects an
agreement announced by Ecuador's president that
would see him leave the Ecuadorean embassy.
February 2019 - Australia grants Mr Assange a new
passport amid fears Ecuador may bring his asylum
to an end.
April 2019 - The Metropolitan Police enter the
embassy and detain him for "failing to surrender
to the court" over a warrant issued in 2012.
Assange has been confined in Belmarsh maximum-
security prison (London) since April 2019.
May 2019 - Mr Assange is sentenced to 50 weeks
in jail for breaching his bail conditions.
May 2019 - Sweden reopens the sexual assault
investigation and the US files 17 new charges against Mr
Assange violating the Espionage Act of 1917. It was Editors
from newspapers, including The Washington Post and The
New York Times, as well as press freedom organisations,
criticised the government's decision to charge Assange
under the Espionage Act, characterising it as an attack on
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
which guarantees freedom of the press.
November 2019 - Swedish prosecutors discontinue
an investigation into an allegation of rape against
Mr Assange

On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser
ruled against the United States' request to extradite
him and stated that doing so would be "oppressive"
given his mental health.
On 6 January 2021, Assange was denied bail on the
grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal
by the United States
The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15
January.A spokesman for the U.S. Department of
Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it
would continue the appeal under the new Biden
administration.
Following the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny
extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to
extradite [Assange] to the United States," in July 2021 the Biden
administration provided assurances to the Crown Prosecution
Services that "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or
imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent
to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the
imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)".
On 11 August 2021 in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge
Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading
report" by an expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman,
and that the contested risk of suicide could now form part of the appeal.The High
Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.

The Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, 1961
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a multilateral
treaty (60 Signatories) adopted on 14 April 1961 by the United
Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities.
Furthermore, the Conference also adopted the Optional
Protocol concerning the Acquisition of Nationality, the Optional
Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the
Final Act and four resolutions annexed to that Act. Up until
today it forms the solid core of diplomatic international law and
practice. It has successfully set a framework for the smooth
development of relations with most violations coming from the
actions of non-state actors.

The term “Diplomatic Asylum” is key in the case of Assange. There is an important differentiation
in the policies of the two countries with Ecuador having signed the Caracas Convention on
Diplomatic Asylum (1954) which recognizes that “Asylum granted in legations, war vessels, and
military camps or aircraft, to persons being sought for political reasons or for political offenses
shall be respected by the territorial State”. On the other hand, the UK has not signed the Caracas
Convention and does not recognize the existence of any type of diplomatic asylum status.
As a consequence, Ecuador accepts the existence of diplomatic asylum while “The UK does not
accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: The United
Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments which require us to recognise the grant of
diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy in this country. Moreover, it is well established that, even
for those countries which do recognise diplomatic asylum, it should not be used for the purposes
of escaping the regular processes of the courts. And in this case that is clearly what is
happening.”15 Given that no convention on diplomatic asylum exists between Ecuador and the
UK the latter is not obliged to recognize the actions of the first. Furthermore, Assange up until
today is not member of the mission hereby not falling under Article 1 of the Geneva Convention
and all related immunities. His case is a matter of premises inviolability since Ecuador decided to
accommodate him inside its embassy.

Ecuador in 2012 granted Julian Assange diplomatic asylum, allowing
him to be accommodated inside its embassy in London. At that time,
both an extradition request by Swedish authorities and related legal
proceedings in British courts were active. The British government,
which does not recognize the notion of diplomatic asylum,
condemned the Ecuadorean Decision.
While Assange is for United Kingdom subject to arrest, his physical
living space, the embassy of Ecuador, is protected by the Vienna
Convention. As a consequence, from a legal perspective, UK police
cannot practically arrest him. The idea for Assange to flee the country
either in a diplomatic bag or diplomatic vehicle is not realistic. The
first scenario, of the diplomatic bag, would be bound to fail as
previous cases and customary law have shown. The second scenario is
unfeasible since Assange would have to walk towards the car an out
of the car on ground that is not protected by the Vienna Convention.

The case of Julian Assange will prove to be vital in the future. The world is
becoming thoroughly interconnected and the internet empowers individuals
to affect national policies. With the number of whistleblowers on the rise
and the challenges western democracies experience we are bound to face
similar cases in the future. The case of Assange provides governments the
dilemma of either securing and respecting the Vienna Convention which has
brought relative stability for half a century thus maintaining the status quo
or violate it and consequentially create legal precedent that will introduce a
new era of diplomatic law.
CONCLUSION

THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE (20)

More from Anushka Singh (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

THE CASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE