On paper, British justice must decide whether the refusal to extradite Julian Assange to the United States for acts of espionage – his 2010 work on secret American documents in partnership with numerous media, including The world – must be maintained.
In fact, this appeal hearing, which ended at the High Court in London on Thursday, October 28, did not address the merits of the case. Legally limited to a small number of elements from the hearing at first instance, the debates focused on the psychological health of Julian Assange and the conditions of detention to which the founder of WikiLeaks would be exposed if the extradition were to finally take place. .
At first instance, in January, Judge Vanessa Baraitser had determined that an extradition to the United States, and the conditions of detention which would result from it, were incompatible with the state of health of Julian Assange as diagnosed by several doctors, and put him at risk of suicide.
The lawyer representing the United States, James Lewis, tried to discredit the testimony of Michael Kopelman, one of the psychiatrists who concluded that the Australian was very fragile. He criticized him for not having mentioned in his first written testimony to the court that Julian Assange had a partner, Stella Morris, with whom he had had two children, a factor which, in his view, could improve his condition. psychological. Assange’s lawyers countered that this omission, justified by the doctor’s desire to respect the couple’s privacy while their relationship was not public, had been corrected in her final testimony and the judge was aware of it, l ‘having indicated in the judgment rendered in January.
Contested American guarantees
Counsel for the Australian and lawyers representing the United States also clashed at length over the “Guarantees” offered by Washington as part of this appeal process. Over the summer, the United States indeed promised that in the event of extradition, Julian Assange would not be held in the high security prison in Florence, Colorado, and that he could ask to be served. her sentence in her native Australia.
For James Lewis, these guarantees are legally “Binding”. He also assured that the United States used to keep its promises. Mr Lewis tried to convince the judges that the commitments significantly changed the situation and nullified fears for the Australian’s life.
Reasoning swept away, in substance and in form, by the support of the whistleblower. “The guarantees offered by the United States on how they will treat Julian Assange in the event of extradition are not even worth the paper they are written on”, said Simon Crowther, one of the representatives of Amnesty International, outside the court.
Even if the American promises were kept, that would not prevent the United States from imposing very harsh conditions of detention, dangerous for the mental health of Julian Assange, argued his lawyers. These guarantees “Do not rule out the risk of solitary confinement, and therefore the risk that this will lead to his death”, said one of them, Mark Summers. Even the US National Security Council (NSC) has recognized that “Special administrative measures”, provisions limiting the rights of certain prisoners held in the United States, were not to be excluded concerning Julian Assange.
Julian Assange tired and thin
On the first day of the hearing, Julian Assange briefly appeared, by videoconference, from Belmarsh high security prison, on the outskirts of London. Dressed in a dark shirt and tie, his white hair worn long, he looked weak and emaciated. His partner was able to visit him in prison on Saturday and declared herself “Very worried” by his state of health.
Lawyers for the activist also repeatedly mentioned a spectacular article published a few weeks ago by YahooNews, in which several CIA officers, most on condition of anonymity, recount how the intelligence agency considered the option of kidnapping – or even murdering – Julian Assange when he was reclusive in the embassy Ecuadorian from London. “There are important reasons to be afraid of what could be done [à Julian Assange] given the revelations of embassy surveillance and assassination plans ”, judged one of his lawyers, also referring in an ongoing trial in Spain targeting several people accused of spying on the Australian and his team for the CIA.
The judges’ decision will not be known for several weeks. It will probably not mark the end of the proceedings, as both parties can, if necessary, request that the case be examined by the Supreme Court.