Group items tagged

The decision – if it comes – will mark the end of a turbulent process that on Wednesday night saw Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, raging against perceived threats from Britain to "storm" the embassy and warning that such a "dangerous precedent" would be met with "appropriate responses in accordance with international law".

Ecuador, as a state that respects rights and justice and is a democratic and peaceful nation state, rejects in the strongest possible terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."This is unbecoming of a democratic, civilised and law-abiding state. If this conduct persists, Ecuador will take appropriate responses in accordance with international law."If the measures announced in the British official communication materialise they will be interpreted by Ecuador as a hostile and intolerable act and also as an attack on our sovereignty, which would require us to respond with greater diplomatic force."Such actions would be a blatant disregard of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and of the rules of international law of the past four centuries."It would be a dangerous precedent because it would open the door to the violation of embassies as a declared sovereign space." Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

Assange denies the allegations against him, but fears he will be sent to the United States if he goes to Sweden. An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Assange inside the London embassy was rejected.A former computer hacker, Assange enraged Washington in 2010 when WikiLeaks published secret US diplomatic cables, has been taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy since 19 June.If Ecuador does give Assange asylum, it is difficult to see how the WikiLeaks boss could physically leave the closely watched embassy and head to an airport without being arrested by British police.

That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them; That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity; That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights; That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense; Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation; Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;

“Persons who find themselves in a situation of asylum and refuge shall enjoy special  protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement], and shall provide emergency legal and humanitarian assistance.”

In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030114/am/30114s01.htm] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.