Submitted by:

Gunashree M
B S Meghana
Sameeksha T R
Hyder
Abdul

Factual background of the Julian Assange Case:

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, an NPO that published leak materials from a wide range
of sources. In 2010, Wikileaks published a series of leaks by a US army soldier, Chelsea
Manning which contained diplomatic analysis from world leaders and the diplomats assessment
of host countries and their officials. The US government launched a criminal investigation into
the leaks. Manning was later convicted by court martial.

Arrest warrant was issued against Julian Assange, for two separate sexual allegations in
Sweden. After returning to the UK, he feared that if he were extradited to Sweden he might be
extradited on to the US, where he believed he could face charges over WikiLeaks’ publication of
the secret US government files.

In December 2010 Julian Assange appeared at an extradition hearing in the UK, where he was
granted bail. Following a legal battle, the courts ruled Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2012. Julian Assange was arrested in April
2019 at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had been staying since 2012. After his
arrest, he was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions and is currently
being held at Belmarsh prison in London.

Applying the European Conventions on Human rights to the Julian Assange Case:

The Julian Assange case, raised a lot of questions relating to the violation of human rights. The
European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR) provides certain articles that protect various
human rights available to people. But, in this case, we can identify violations of several of those
rights.
The attorneys representing Julian Assange in the case, have argued that he is facing inhuman
treatment, arbitrary detention and unfair trial, for his work as a journalist and a publisher for
whistleblowers.

The Swedish investigation and prospect has not handled the case in a usual way which doubts
the fairness of the proceedings. The number of days Julain Assange has already spent in the
embassy has exceeded the maximum possible time he could ever spend in a prison if he were
to be convicted. He has been in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012. This is a clear
violation of Article 6 of ECHR, which provides the right to fair trial.
Some experts believe that the situation is worse than in a prison, where he can’t breathe fresh
air or even feel the warmth of the sun. Not to forget, it has also cut off ties with his wife and
children. He has been exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment for several years which
has caused psychological trauma. This is a clear violation of the Article 3 of the ECHR, which
prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 1 also says that there is an obligation
to respect human rights.

Article 5, Right to liberty and security, clause 4 states that “Everyone who is deprived of his
liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his
detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not
lawful.”

Article 10, Freedom of Expression, the article clearly mentions that everyone has the right to
impart and receive information without interference by public authorities. It is a direct violation of
the fundamental freedom of press and it will have negative effects on basic acts of journalism. It
raises important issues about the protection of publishers who publish information in public
interest and especially information related to violation of human rights.

Whistleblower protection is encouraged in several international agreements. Assange’s work

was releasing information in public interest, and the government’s misconduct and human rights
violations. Taking action against such activities shall question the extent of protection available
to whistleblowers. And questions the government’s transparency and accountability.

Article 13, Right to effective remedy, states that if anyone’s rights and freedoms are violated,
they shall have an effective remedy before a national authority, notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.