E21 ORTEN

Von: (EB auswaertiges-amt.de
Betreff: WG: GENFIO*33: Julian Assange
« Wichtigkeit: Niedrig

 

---Ursprüngliche Nachricl
Von: a
Gesendet: Freitag, 5, Februa 2016 11 :29
An: ORO6-R (EEE
Betreff: GENFIO*33: Julian Assange
Wichtigkeit: Niedrig

 

aus: GENF INTER
nr 33 vom 05.02.2016, 1027 oz

Verfasser ED
Gz. EB 331.70/64 051025
Betr.: Julian Assange
hier: Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe Arbitrary Detention des VN-Menschenrechtsrates

- zur Unterrichtung -
I. Zusammenfassung und Wertung

Am 5.2. 2016 veröffentlichte die Arbeitsgruppe (AG) für willkürliche Verhaftung ("Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention") ihre Stellungnahme ("Opinion") 54/2015 zur Situation von Julian Assange. Die AG stellt darin fest,
Assange werde willkürlich festgehalten und habe Recht auf Freiheit sowie eine Entschädigung.

Das Büro des Hochkommissars für Menschenrechte (OHCHR) deutet auf einem Twitter-Video und in der
Pressemitteilung an, die Stellungnahme sei wegen ihres Bezugs zum Internationalen Pakt für Bürgerliche und
‚Politische Rechte zumindest "indirekt rechtsverbindlich". Von den VN Mitgliedstaaten wird diese Einschätzung
grundsätzlich --nicht-- geteilt: Weder das Mandat der AG noch die Staatenpraxis indizieren eine
Rechtsverbindlichkeit der Stellungnahmen der AG.

Die AG gehört zu den sog. Sonderverfahren ("Special Procedures") des VN-Menschenrechtsrates. Der
Menschenrechtsrat hat 41 thematische und 14 Ländermandate für derartige Sonderverfahren eingerichtet. Es
handelt sich um Expertengremien; ihre Positionen sind nicht mit Positionen der VN als Institution gleichzusetzen. Die
Mitglieder der AG sind unabhängig, werden nicht von den VN bezahlt und gehören nicht denVNan.

11. Im Einzelnen und Ergänzend

Mitglieder der AG sind:

- Mr. KOR (Chair-Rapporteur)
- Mr. EB viEx

- Mr. EEE BEN

- Ms. EB Aus

- Mr. EB UxR

GE sich wegen ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit für befangen erklärt und nicht an der Entscheidung mitgewirkt, ein
Mitglied der AG hat gegen die Entscheidung gestimmt weil keine Haft vorliege.

1

folgt StN der AG:
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Deems the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Julian Assange as arbitrary

On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it
considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to
his freedom of movement and to compensation. The application was filed with the Working Group in September
2014. The Opinion 54/2015 was sent to the Governments

of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 January 2016 in accordance with the
Working Group's Methods of Work.

Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one ofthe members ofthe Working Group who shares his nationality
recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the
position ofthe majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is.not one of detention and therefore falls
outside the mandate ofthe Working Group.

In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual
misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish
Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected
to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic
of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its

Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange's fear that if he was extradited
to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for
the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian
Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police.

The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty:
initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian
Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that
the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because ofthe
lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in

its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this
detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9{1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 ofthe ICCPR, and
falls within category Ill as defined in its Methods of Work.

The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to
ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an
expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on
detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange
should be afforded the right to compensation.

5 February 2016

Folgt Pressemitteilung:

Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds

u

 

 

GENEVA (5 February 2016) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the
United Kingdom since his arrest in London on 7 December 2010, as a result ofthe legal action against him by both
Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.

In a public statement, the expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange's
deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to
compensation (Check the statement:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E)

Mr. Assange, detained first in prison then under house arrest, took refuge in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012
after losing his appeal to the UK's Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where a judicial investigation was
initiated against him in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct. However, he was not formally charged.

"The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian
Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention," said Seong-Phil Hong, who currently heads
the expert panel.

"The Working Group maintains that the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should be brought to an end, that his
physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to
compensation," Mr. Hong added.

In its official Opinion, the Working Group considered that Mr. Assange had been subjected to different forms of
deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth Prison in London, followed by house arrest and then
confinement at the Ecuadorean Embassy.

The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth
Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor's Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy
loss of liberty.

The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 ofthe Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Check the Working Group's Opinion on Julian Assange's case (No. 54/2015), adopted in December:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on
binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The
WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or
inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from
detention and compensation, when appropriate.

The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature

- ofis findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions ofthe

WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including
the European Court of Human Rights.

ENDS

Mr. Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea) is the Chairman-Rapporteur ofthe Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
Other members ofthe Working Group are Ms. Leigh Toomey (Australia); Mr. Jos& Antonio Guevara Bermüdez
(Mexico); Mr. Roland Adjovi Sätondji (Benin) and Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine). Learn more, log on to:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx

The UN Working Groups are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special
Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name ofthe
Couneil’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or

3

thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff
and do not receive a salary for their work.
They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

 

D