The British and Swedish authorities have rejected a UN panel’s findings and say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will still face arrest if he exits Ecuador’s embassy. He’s not budging, reports Samira Shackle from London.
The world’s media gathered outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London’s Knightsbridge today. Cameras jostled for space and reporters crowded the pavements, at times blocking traffic, as they waited to see if Julian Assange would emerge from the building. The odd customer coming out of Harrods, the upmarket department store, stopped to join the fray, asking in whispers what people were waiting for.
The furore was trigged by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), based in Geneva. On Friday, the group said in a statement that “the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention.”
A small number of WikiLeaks supporters, who have kept vigil for Assange since he arrived at the embassy in 2012, attracted throngs of journalists, battling to get the best camera angle. Former Spanish teacher Elsa Collins addressed the assembled reporters through a megaphone, declaring that the UK government was detaining Assange illegally. Later, another supporter silently held up a copy of the WikiLeaks files.
Inside the embassy, Assange addressed the world’s media via Skype, speaking to a press conference being held in west London. He declared that Britain’s foreign secretary had “insulted” the UN by rejecting the panel’s findings. “This is the end of the road for the legal arguments put forward by Sweden and the UK,” he said.

Supporters have held vigils for Assange throughout his time in the enbassy
Assange claimed asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012. He wanted to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape claim that he denies. Assange believes that if he is extradited to Sweden, he could be extradited in turn to the US where he could face charges over his organization WikiLeaks’ sharing of confidential state documents. Entering the embassy was a violation of his bail conditions in the UK, meaning that he faces arrest if he steps outside. The stand-off has cost the British taxpayer 12 million pounds (16 million euros/$17 million) on policing.
In 2014, Assange complained to the UN panel that he was being “arbitrarily detained” as he could not leave the embassy without being arrested. He argued that living in 30 square meters of the embassy with no sunlight or fresh air had taken a “significant toll” on his mental and physical health.
“The UN body issued its decision after a 16-month independent review that took into account all evidence submitted by Sweden and the UK,” Carey Shenkman, Assange’s US human rights lawyer, told DW. “We now look to both countries to implement the reported decision in accord with their obligations under international law.”
Standing firm
Yet the authorities are not backing down. As details of the UNWGAD’s decision were leaked on Thursday, the Metropolitan Police issued a statement reiterating that Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy. Swedish prosecutors, too, said that the UN panel’s decision would have “no formal impact” on its ongoing investigation.

The embassy has been Assange’s home since 2012
“We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy,” a spokesman for Downing Street told DW. “The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden.”
Given this context, what difference will the decision make to the long legal stand off? Legal opinions are divided. Understandably, Assange’s legal team are playing up the significance. “I would call the decision a game-changer,” says Shenkman. “It means Sweden and the UK need to fix this situation and compensate Mr Assange for the injury caused to him. To date neither country has offered Mr Assange a process that takes into account his asylum.”
Not binding
Others point out that – contrary to Assange’s press statement Friday – the UN panel’s decision is not legally binding. “It is an advisory opinion with no legal effect,” said UK legal commentator David Allen Green. “Had the decision gone the other way, that would not have made any legal difference either. It’s not entirely irrelevant – it’s a document which Assange could refer to in court, to support or evidence a point, but it would not by itself make any legal difference.”

Backers have hung poster about Assange outside the embassy
The reasoning of the UN panel has also been called into question, not just by the British and Swedish authorities, but by a number of legal experts. “Ironically, they seem to have adopted an arbitrary definition of arbitrary, and also of detention,” said Green. “Arbitrary here should mean this is Kafkaesque or inconsistent with what you would reasonably expect. It is not. He was able to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court and all he had to do was comply with bail conditions. The detention is entirely at his own will – he’s a fugitive. He can walk out at any point. Nothing is stopping him. But once out he will just have to obey the law of the land.”
Of course, neither the UK nor Sweden will want to appear to go against a UN decision. “The ball is in Sweden’s yard, in the prosecutor’s yard,” said Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelsson. “She is not formally bound by the decision by the UN, but morally it is very difficult to go against it.”
As the press conference drew to a close and rain started to fall on this typically grey London February day, it became apparent that after nearly four years inside the embassy, Assange was not going to risk arrest by the waiting police officers outside.
Timeline: Julian Assange’s travails so far
Starting with the WikiLeaks “Afghanistan War Story” in the summer of 2010, matters moved apace concerning founder Julian Assange. Here’s a summary of key dates during what the UN claims is his “unlawful detention.”
Julian Assange has been in hiding in Ecuador’s London embassy since the summer of 2012, two years after whistleblowing website WikiLeaks launched with three major tranches of largely-classified documents in just a matter of months. Here’s a recap of the major moments in his story so far.
July 25, 2010: WikiLeaks publishes more than 75,000 secret US military reports on the war in Afghanistan. In total, the “Afghanistan War Story” stretches beyond 90,000 documents.

How it all began….
August 18, 2010: Assange requests a Swedish residency permit, hoping to create a WikiLeaks base in a country with strong laws protecting whistleblowers. The application was rejected exactly two months later, at which point it became public knowledge.
August 20, 2010: Swedish prosecutors issue arrest warrant for Assange, saying he was wanted for questioning on suspicion of sexual offenses.
October 22, 2010: WikiLeaks publishes “The Iraq War Logs,” almost 400,000 sensitive documents on the US-led war and occupation. The reports detailed more than 100,000 known deaths in Iraq, more than 60 percent of which were classified internally as civilian.
November 18, 2010: Sweden issues fresh arrest warrant, but still no charges, against Assange, based on sexual assault charges filed by two women. Assange denies the charges, claiming the sex was consensual.
November 28, 2010: WikiLeaks’ third major release, which became known as “Cablegate,” turns its focus to US diplomacy. More than a quarter of a million diplomatic correspondences were unveiled, including sensitive analyses and descriptions of relations with US allies, partners, and enemies. Many of the cables remained redacted; although they would later be republished, unedited.
December 7, 2010: Assange presents himself to police in London, but pledges to fight the extradition request in court. Later, out on bail, he says the efforts to detain him are part of a smear campaign, hinting he believes Washington to be pulling the strings, not Stockholm.
February 24, 2011: London’s Belmarsh Magistrate’s Court rules in favor of Assange’s extradition. He appeals to the High Court, saying he fears his final destination will in fact be the US.
November 2, 2011: High Court upholds extradition order.
December 5, 2011: Assange wins right to appeal at UK Supreme Court, as panel finds his case pertained to “a question of general public importance.”
May 30, 2012: Supreme Court rules extradition to Sweden should go ahead, exhausting the Australian national’s legal options in Britain.
June 19, 2012: Assange jumps bail, seeking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he applies for political asylum. The government allows him to remain in the building. A years-long routine of daily police surveillance, eventually running to costs of around 10 million pounds (13 million euros or $14.5 million at current exchange rates), begins outside the embassy.
July 31, 2013: US military court convicts Army Private Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning) on 19 of 21 charges linked to the sensitive documents ultimately published by WikiLeaks. Crucially, he avoids the key charge of “aiding the enemy” – which can carry the death penalty – and is later sentenced to 35 years in prison.

It transpired that Private Bradley Manning was practically the sole source of the WikiLeaks material
October 25, 2013: Ecuador calls on the UK to permit Assange to fly to Quito, without success.
July 16, 2014: A Swedish court upholds European arrest warrant against the former computer programmer. His legal team pledges an appeal (see November 20, 2014 entry).
August 18, 2014: Assange’s lawyer says his client wants assurance he will not be extradited to the US before he would agree to leave the embassy in London.
September 12, 2014: Assange files complaint with the UN Working Group of Arbitrary Detention, complaining against UK and Sweden.
November 20, 2014: Appeal fails in Swedish court, arrest warrant stands.
February 25, 2015: Lawyers ask Sweden’s Supreme Court to quash the warrant against Assange.
March 13, 2015: Swedish prosecutors offer to question Assange in the embassy. Initially, he accepts, before Ecuador’s government demands that its prosecutors should conduct the interrogation.
October 12, 2015: Three years in, London’s Metropolitan Police stop round-the-clock monitoring of the embassy, citing daily monitoring costs of around 11,000 euros and calling the operation “no longer proportionate,” given the lengthy stalemate.
February 2, 2016: The 44-year-old says that if his appeal to the UN’s arbitrary detention working group fails, he would turn himself in to police.
February 5, 2016: UN confirms report, first announced by Sweden’s foreign ministry, that its panel has ruled that Assange is being “arbitrarily detained.” Panel recommends that Sweden and UK compensate him for the time spent in the embassy. The UN ruling has no legal basis and is non-binding, so the UK and Sweden immediately dismissed the ruling. Britain’s Foreign Secretary Hammond called it “ridiculous”, saying Assange was a “fugitive from justice”, adding that nothing had changed.
-DW.COM