Politicians across Europe want Britain to investigate why the WikiLeaks founder spent five years in jail, writes Mark Curtis.
Stella Assange and Julian Assange at the Council of Europe on Oct. 1. (PACE)
By Mark Curtis
Declassified UK
Britain’s Home Office is making a “grave mistake” by ignoring a call from the Council of Europe to review its treatment of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder’s wife has warned.
The council’s parliamentary assembly, of which the U.K. is a member, passed a resolution earlier this month designating Assange as a “political prisoner”.
Assange endured five years in Belmarsh maximum security prison in London before being released in June, and flying to his native Australia. The U.K. government had incarcerated him while the U.S. pursued extradition proceedings in the British courts.
His treatment has outraged the Council of Europe, which was created in the aftermath of World War II with strong backing from Winston Churchill.
Its resolution urged the U.K. authorities to conduct a review “with a view to establishing whether he [Assange] has been exposed to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to their international obligations”.
It found the U.K. authorities
“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.”
Declassified asked Britain’s Home Office what its response was to the Council of Europe’s call.
The U.K. Home Office in London. (Steve Cadman, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)
The government department deflected the question, replying: “The longstanding extradition request for Julian Assange has been resolved. As is standard practice, all extradition requests are considered on an individual basis by our independent courts and in accordance with U.K. law.”
The demands of the parliamentary assembly are not binding on European governments but they are “obliged to respond”.
‘Cover-Up’
Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, told Declassified the Home Office is making a “grave mistake” in refusing to heed the Council of Europe’s call.
She said:
“We know that the Crown Prosecution Service has disappeared key documents relating to Julian’s imprisonment and refused to provide information, first to a journalist, and now to the court, that might shed a light on the political side of Julian’s persecution in the U.K..
“It is one thing for rogue elements in the CPS to collude with foreign governments to persecute a publisher and attempt to cover their tracks. It is quite another for the U.K. government to stonewall in this manner in the wake of an independent report by the Council of Europe and a vote by the overwhelming majority of the chamber calling on the U.K. to carry out an investigation.”
[See: Fighting for More Evidence of Assange’s Political Prosecution]
She added:
“The U.K. government is effectively partaking in the cover-up, in a way that only a guilty party would.”
‘Psychological Torture’
Belmarsh Prison flyover view. (dave patten, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Assange’s detention in maximum security Belmarsh was “out of proportion in relation to his alleged offence”, the Council of Europe’s resolution found.
It recalled the findings of the then United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, that 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”.
Melzer’s report, produced in 2019 while Assange had secured asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, called on U.K. officials to be investigated for possible “criminal conduct” in their treatment of Assange. It was never reported in the U.K. national media.
The Council of Europe found that the U.K. authorities “appear to have ignored” Melzer’s findings.
Its resolution was passed with 88 in favour, 13 against and 20 abstentions. All four U.K. members of the parliamentary assembly voted against, including Lord Richard Keen, a Conservative peer, who expressed a dissenting opinion.
Keen argued that it was “legally incorrect” to find that Assange had been detained unlawfully, as he had violated bail conditions before and was considered a flight risk.
Keen also rejected the accusation of torture against the U.K., saying that Assange’s “regrettable psychological state” identified by Melzer was due to Assange’s “self-imposed lengthy isolation in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and cannot be blamed on the U.K. authorities.”
Keen at the Council of Europe during the Oct. 1 session with Assange. (PACE video still)
‘Chilling Effect’
The Council of Europe concluded that the treatment of Assange “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”.
It added: “It severely undermines the role of the press and the protection of journalists and whistle-blowers around the world.”
The resolution also noted that the Council was “alarmed” by reports that the US Central Intelligence Agency had covertly surveyed Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and was allegedly developing plans to poison or even assassinate him on U.K. soil.
Rebecca Vincent, campaigns director at Reporters Without Borders, told us that Julian Assange’s sentencing by U.K. courts to 50 weeks in prison for breaking bail was “disproportionate”.
She added: “His subsequent prolonged detention in a high-security prison with no charges against him in the U.K., held purely on remand, constituted a gross violation of his rights.”
Vincent said:
“We faced unusual restrictions from U.K. authorities in trying to do our jobs advocating in this case, including extreme difficulties securing consistent access to monitor extradition proceedings against Assange in U.K. courts, and access to visit him in Belmarsh prison. These aspects all merit a serious independent review.”
Mark Curtis is the director of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on U.K. foreign policy.
This article is from Declassified UK.
Views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.