The detention and conviction of Julian Assange and their chilling effects on human rights
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 2 October 2024 (28th sitting) (see Doc. 16040, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights, rapporteur: Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir). Text adopted by the Assembly on
2 October 2024 (28th sitting).
1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls
the importance of a free press, whose role of “public watchdog” ensures
the proper functioning of a democratic State governed by the rule
of law. This role is particularly relevant in light of the seriousness
of ongoing armed conflicts and the increasing number and gravity
of acts of transnational repression. In this context, the harsh
treatment of Julian Assange, who was recently released from custody
after more than a decade of prosecution for his journalistic work,
merits particular attention.
2. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks rose to international prominence
after the release of the “Collateral Murder” video in 2010 – a classified
recording depicting the killing of civilians, including journalists,
by the military forces of the United States of America in Iraq.
In the following months, WikiLeaks published scores of other classified
US material, disclosed by a whistle-blower, Chelsea Manning. Much
of the leaked material, including the “Collateral Murder” video,
provided credible evidence of war crimes, human rights violations
and governmental misconduct.
3. WikiLeaks’ publications also confirmed the existence of secret
detention sites, abductions and illegal transfers of prisoners conducted
by the United States of America within Europe, which were first
reported by the Assembly in 2006 and 2007. In its
Resolution 1838 (2011) “Abuse
of state secrecy and national security: obstacles to parliamentary
and judicial scrutiny of human rights violations”, the Assembly
welcomed WikiLeaks’ release of numerous diplomatic reports confirming
the Assembly’s findings while noting that “[i]n some countries,
in particular the United States, the notion of state secrecy is
used to shield agents of the executive from prosecution for crimes
such as abduction and torture, or to stop victims from suing for
compensation”.
4. Shortly after WikiLeaks’ initial publications of classified
material, Julian Assange became a person of interest in a criminal
investigation in Sweden, concerning alleged sexual misconduct. Following
his lawful departure from Sweden, he was arrested in London under
a European arrest warrant issued by the Swedish judicial authorities.
He was released shortly after that to house arrest, having been
granted bail pending the outcome of his surrender proceedings. The
house arrest continued for some 550 days. Eventually, the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom refused Mr Assange’s appeal against
an extradition order granted by the Secretary of State for the Home
Department of the United Kingdom. In fear of being extradited from Sweden
onwards to the United States of America, where he could have faced
a de facto life sentence, Mr Assange
violated bail conditions and sought diplomatic asylum in the Embassy
of Ecuador in London. He has never been charged with any crime in
Sweden and the investigation into his alleged transgressions was finally
discontinued in 2019. In its Opinion No. 54/2015 on the detention
of Julian Assange, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention criticised the Swedish prosecuting authorities for their
lack of diligence and respect for Mr Assange’s procedural rights.
5. Mr Assange was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in April
2019, arrested and remanded in the high-security His Majesty’s Prison
Belmarsh in London, where he initially served a sentence for violating
bail conditions and then awaited the decision on his possible extradition
to the United States of America. In the course of the judicial proceedings,
Mr Assange consistently argued that his extradition risked violating
Articles 3 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS
No. 5).
6. Even though there is no denying that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks
helped uncover matters of utmost public interest, Julian Assange
has faced immense backlash in the United States of America. Nevertheless, under
the Barack Obama administration, the United States Department of
Justice decided against prosecuting him, believing that indicting
Mr Assange could not be reconciled with freedom of expression, protected
under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
and could negatively affect media freedom by establishing a dangerous
precedent. Chelsea Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years of
imprisonment for revealing classified documents to WikiLeaks, serving
several years in prison before her sentence was commuted by President
Obama.
7. Following the election of Donald Trump and the release of
further classified materials by WikiLeaks, including the so-called
“Vault 7” revelations that disclosed the Central Intelligence Agency’s
(CIA) software exploitation capabilities, the Department of Justice
reversed its decision and decided to prosecute Julian Assange. Initial
proceedings against him focused on charges of computer hacking.
In 2019, he was also indicted under the United States Espionage
Act of 1917, making him the first-ever publisher to be prosecuted under
this legislation for having disclosed classified information obtained
from a whistle-blower. In total, he was indicted on 17 counts under
the US Espionage Act. Had he been convicted of all of them, Mr Assange
would have faced up to one hundred and seventy-five years of imprisonment.
8. Julian Assange was released from Belmarsh Prison on 24 June
2024 pursuant to a plea agreement with the US Department of Justice,
after five years and two months of imprisonment. On 26 June 2024,
he appeared before a US federal court in Saipan. He pleaded guilty
to a single charge of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and
notes connected with national defence, and to wilfully communicate
documents relating to the national defence, from a person having
both lawful and unauthorised possession of the same, in violation
of the US Espionage Act. He was sentenced to time served and allowed
to return to his native Australia.
9. The Assembly notes that this plea agreement states that “[a]s
of the date of the Plea Agreement, the United States has not identified
any victim qualifying for individual restitution and, thus, is not
requesting an order of restitution”. This essential factor must
be considered when assessing the proportionality of measures employed
against Mr Assange in response to his (and WikiLeaks’) publications.
10. The Assembly warmly welcomes Mr Assange’s release and reunion
with his family. Nevertheless, it is deeply concerned that the disproportionately
harsh treatment of Julian Assange, in particular his unprecedented
conviction under the Espionage Act, creates a dangerous chilling
effect and a climate of self-censorship affecting all journalists,
publishers and others reporting matters essential for the functioning
of a democratic society. Moreover, his conviction severely undermines
the role of the press and the protection of journalists and whistle-blowers
around the world.
11. The Assembly is equally alarmed by reports that the CIA was
covertly surveying Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London
and was allegedly developing plans to poison or even assassinate
him on British soil. It reiterates its condemnation of all forms
and practices of transnational repression.
12. The Assembly is deeply concerned by the fact that despite
many documents and recordings revealed by Mr Assange and WikiLeaks,
which provide credible evidence of war crimes and human rights violations committed
by US State agents, there is no publicly available information on
anyone being held to account for these atrocities. The failure of
the competent US authorities to prosecute the alleged perpetrators,
combined with the harsh treatment of Mr Assange and Ms Manning,
creates a perception that the US Government’s purpose in prosecuting
Mr Assange was to hide wrongdoings of State agents rather than to
protect national security.
13. The Assembly recognises the legitimacy of measures aimed at
ensuring the adequate protection of secrets affecting national security.
It reiterates its position, however, that information concerning
the responsibility of State agents who have committed war crimes
or serious human rights violations, such as murder, enforced disappearance,
torture or abduction, does not deserve to be protected as secret.
Such information should not be shielded from public scrutiny or
judicial accountability under the guise of “State secrecy”.
14. The Assembly notes that State security and intelligence services,
which unquestionably perform an important task, cannot be exempted
from accountability for any unlawful actions. Creating a culture
of impunity undermines the foundations of democratic institutions
and risks provoking further abuses.
15. One of the arguments used to justify the disproportionately
harsh treatment of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was that the release
of unredacted materials put the lives and safety of individuals
at risk. While the Assembly agrees that any disclosure of classified
information should be made in such a way as to respect the personal
safety of informers, intelligence sources and secret service personnel,
the case of Mr Assange should not be assessed in
abstracto. Over thirteen years since the publications,
no evidence has been produced showing that WikiLeaks’ publications
have harmed anyone, as recently confirmed by the plea agreement.
The Assembly regrets that, although Mr Assange revealed thousands
of confirmed and previously unreported deaths at the hands of US
and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was the one to
be accused of putting lives at risk.
16. Democratic societies cannot thrive without the free flow of
information and their citizens’ ability to hold their governments
accountable. The Assembly reiterates its strong support for freedom
of expression and information as a fundamental right guaranteed
by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article
19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and encourages the Council of Europe member States to work tirelessly
to strengthen the protection of free speech and a free press.
17. The Assembly considers the length of detention of Julian Assange
in Belmarsh Prison and his conviction under the Espionage Act to
be out of proportion in relation to his alleged offence. The Assembly
recalls that news gathering is an essential preparatory step in
journalism and is protected by the right to freedom of expression
as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. It observes
that Mr Assange was punished for engaging in activities that journalists
perform on a daily basis: they elicit and receive leaked information
from their sources and publish it where it provides credible evidence
of wrongdoing.
18. The Assembly recalls that the United Nations Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention considered that Mr Assange was arbitrarily
detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom. It
further recalls that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, [BB1]Nils
Melzer, concluded that Mr Assange had been exposed to “progressively
severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological
torture”. The Assembly finds it concerning that the authorities
of the United Kingdom appear to have ignored these opinions, further
aggravating Mr Assange’s situation.
19. The Assembly considers that the disproportionately severe
charges brought by the United States of America against Julian Assange
under the Espionage Act, exposing him to a risk of
de facto life imprisonment, combined
with his conviction and sentencing under the Espionage Act for what
was, in essence, news gathering and publishing, fulfil the criteria
set out in
Resolution
1900 (2012) “The definition of political prisoner” and
warrant the designation of Mr Assange as a political prisoner.
20. The Assembly also regrets that the authorities of the United
Kingdom failed to effectively protect Mr Assange’s freedom of expression
and right to liberty, exposing him to lengthy detention in a high-security prison
despite the political nature of the most severe charges against
him. His detention with a view to extradition far exceeded the reasonable
length acceptable for that purpose. The Assembly regrets that the Extradition
Act 2003 removed the political offence exemption from the United
Kingdom’s extradition law, exposing dissidents and opposition members
to the risk of being extradited to States prosecuting them on political
grounds.
21. The Assembly considers that the misuse of the Espionage Act
by the United States of America to prosecute Julian Assange has
caused a dangerous chilling effect, dissuading publishers, journalists
and whistle-blowers from reporting on governmental misconduct, thus
severely undermining freedom of expression and paving the way for
further abuse by State authorities. To this end, the Assembly calls
on the United States of America – a State having observer status
with the Council of Europe – to:
21.1 urgently
reform the Espionage Act and make its application conditional on
the presence of a malicious intent to harm the national security
of the United States of America or to aid a foreign power;
21.2 exclude the application of the Espionage Act to publishers,
journalists and whistle-blowers who disclose classified information
with the intent to raise public awareness and inform on serious
crimes, such as murder, torture, corruption or illegal surveillance.
22. The Assembly further calls on the United States of America
to:
22.1 conduct thorough, impartial
and transparent investigations into alleged war crimes and human rights
violations disclosed by WikiLeaks and Mr Assange, holding those
responsible to account and tackling a culture of impunity towards
State agents or those acting at their behest;
22.2 co-operate in good faith with the Spanish judicial authorities
to clarify all facts of the alleged unlawful surveillance of Mr Assange
and his interlocutors in the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
23. The Assembly calls on the United Kingdom to:
23.1 urgently review its extradition
laws in order to prevent the possibility of extraditing individuals wanted
for offences of a political nature;
23.2 conduct, having regard to the conclusions of the United
Nations Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer, an independent review of
the treatment of Julian Assange by the relevant authorities with
a view to establishing whether he was exposed to torture or inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to their international
obligations.
24. The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member and observer
States to:
24.1 provide adequate
protection, including asylum, to whistle-blowers who expose unlawful
activities of their governments and, for those reasons, are threatened
with retaliation in their home States, provided their disclosures
qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly,
in particular the defence of the public interest;
24.2 refrain from extraditing individuals for charges related
to journalistic activities, in particular when these charges appear
grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence;
24.3 continue to improve the protection of whistle-blowers
and the effectiveness of whistle-blowing procedures;
24.4 review their shield laws and ensure that journalists are
effectively protected from being forced to reveal the identity of
their sources;
24.5 increase government transparency by reducing the scope
of information that can be classified as secret and encourage the
spontaneous release of information not critical to national security;
24.6 implement strict guidelines and relevant oversight mechanisms
to prevent the overclassification of government documents as secret,
where their contents do not warrant this.
25. The Assembly also urges media organisations to establish robust
protocols for handling and verifying classified information to ensure
responsible reporting, thus avoiding any risk for national security
and the safety of informers and sources.
