If we no longer know what our governments are doing, it represents a grave danger to societal integrity.
By Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture:
In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself and could be tortured to death in the United States.
1. The Swedish Police constructed a story of rape
Nils Melzer, why is
the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
interested in Julian Assange?
That is something that the German Foreign
Ministry recently asked me as well: Is that
really your core mandate? Is Assange the victim
of torture?
What was your response?
The case falls into my mandate in three
different ways: First, Assange published proof
of systematic torture. But instead of those
responsible for the torture, it is Assange who
is being persecuted. Second, he himself has been
ill-treated to the point that he is now
exhibiting symptoms of psychological torture.
And third, he is to be extradited to a country
that holds people like him in prison conditions
that Amnesty International has described as
torture. In summary: Julian Assange uncovered
torture, has been tortured himself and could be
tortured to death in the United States. And a
case like that isn’t supposed to be part of my
area of responsibility? Beyond that, the case is
of symbolic importance and affects every citizen
of a democratic country.
Why didn’t you take up the case much
earlier?
Imagine a dark room. Suddenly, someone shines a
light on the elephant in the room – on war
criminals, on corruption. Assange is the man
with the spotlight. The governments are briefly
in shock, but then they turn the spotlight
around with accusations of rape. It is a classic
maneuver when it comes to manipulating public
opinion. The elephant once again disappears into
the darkness, behind the spotlight. And Assange
becomes the focus of attention instead, and we
start talking about whether Assange is
skateboarding in the embassy or whether he is
feeding his cat correctly. Suddenly, we all know
that he is a rapist, a hacker, a spy and a
narcissist. But the abuses and war crimes he
uncovered fade into the darkness. I also lost my
focus, despite my professional experience, which
should have led me to be more vigilant.
Let’s start at the beginning: What led
you to take up the case?
In December 2018, I was asked by his lawyers to
intervene. I initially declined. I was
overloaded with other petitions and wasn’t
really familiar with the case. My impression,
largely influenced by the media, was also
colored by the prejudice that Julian Assange was
somehow guilty and that he wanted to manipulate
me. In March 2019, his lawyers approached me for
a second time because indications were mounting
that Assange would soon be expelled from the
Ecuadorian Embassy. They sent me a few key
documents and a summary of the case and I
figured that my professional integrity demanded
that I at least take a look at the material.
And then?
It quickly became clear to me that something was
wrong. That there was a contradiction that made
no sense to me with my extensive legal
experience: Why would a person be subject to
nine years of a preliminary investigation for
rape without charges ever having been filed?
Is that unusual?
I have never seen a comparable case. Anyone can
trigger a preliminary investigation against
anyone else by simply going to the police and
accusing the other person of a crime. The
Swedish authorities, though, were never
interested in testimony from Assange. They
intentionally left him in limbo. Just imagine
being accused of rape for nine-and-a-half years
by an entire state apparatus and by the media
without ever being given the chance to defend
yourself because no charges had ever been filed.
You say that the Swedish authorities
were never interested in testimony from Assange.
But the media and government agencies have
painted a completely different picture over the
years: Julian Assange, they say, fled the
Swedish judiciary in order to avoid being held
accountable.
That’s what I always thought, until I started
investigating. The opposite is true. Assange
reported to the Swedish authorities on several
occasions because he wanted to respond to the
accusations. But the authorities stonewalled.
What do you mean by that: «The
authorities stonewalled?»
Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak
fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of
the original documents. I could hardly believe
my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman
in question, a rape had never even taken place
at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony
was later changed by the Stockholm police
without her involvement in order to somehow make
it sound like a possible rape. I have all the
documents in my possession, the emails, the text
messages.
«The woman’s testimony was later changed
by the police» – how exactly?
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a
Stockholm police station together with a second
woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said
she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange,
but he had not been wearing a condom. She said
she was now concerned that she could be infected
with HIV and wanted to know if she could force
Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was
really worried. The police wrote down her
statement and immediately informed public
prosecutors. Even before questioning could be
completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would
be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was
shocked and refused to continue with
questioning. While still in the police station,
she wrote a text message to a friend saying that
she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she
just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the
police were apparently interested in «getting
their hands on him.»
What does that mean?
S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She
declined to participate in further questioning
and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a
headline appeared on the front page of
Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian
Assange was suspected of having committed two
rapes.
Two rapes?
Yes, because there was the second woman, A. A.
She didn’t want to press charges either; she had
merely accompanied S. W. to the police station.
She wasn’t even questioned that day. She later
said that Assange had sexually harassed her. I
can’t say, of course, whether that is true or
not. I can only point to the order of events: A
woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t
want to file a complaint but wants to demand an
HIV test. The police then decide that this could
be a case of rape and a matter for public
prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with
that version of events and then goes home and
writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention,
but the police want to «get their hands on»
Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the
newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors
leaked it to the press – and they did so without
even inviting Assange to make a statement. And
the second woman, who had allegedly been raped
according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only
questioned on Aug. 21.
What did the second woman say when she
was questioned?
She said that she had made her apartment
available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a
conference. A small, one-room apartment. When
Assange was in the apartment, she came home
earlier than planned, but told him it was no
problem and that the two of them could sleep in
the same bed. That night, they had consensual
sex, with a condom. But she said that during
sex, Assange had intentionally broken the
condom. If that is true, then it is, of course,
a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But
the woman also said that she only later noticed
that the condom was broken. That is a
contradiction that should absolutely have been
clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot
know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a
single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could
be detected in the condom that was submitted as
evidence.
How did the two women know each other?
They didn’t really know each other. A. A., who
was hosting Assange and was serving as his press
secretary, had met S. W. at an event where S. W.
was wearing a pink cashmere sweater. She
apparently knew from Assange that he was
interested in a sexual encounter with S. W.,
because one evening, she received a text message
from an acquaintance saying that he knew Assange
was staying with her and that he, the
acquaintance, would like to contact Assange.
A. A. answered: Assange is apparently sleeping
at the moment with the “cashmere girl.” The next
morning, S. W. spoke with A. A. on the phone and
said that she, too, had slept with Assange and
was now concerned about having become infected
with HIV. This concern was apparently a real
one, because S.W. even went to a clinic for
consultation. A. A. then suggested: Let’s go to
the police – they can force Assange to get an
HIV test. The two women, though, didn’t go to
the closest police station, but to one quite far
away where a friend of A. A.’s works as a
policewoman – who then questioned S. W.,
initially in the presence of A. A., which isn’t
proper practice. Up to this point, though, the
only problem was at most a lack of
professionalism. The willful malevolence of the
authorities only became apparent when they
immediately disseminated the suspicion of rape
via the tabloid press, and did so without
questioning A. A. and in contradiction to the
statement given by S. W. It also violated a
clear ban in Swedish law against releasing the
names of alleged victims or perpetrators in
sexual offense cases. The case now came to the
attention of the chief public prosecutor in the
capital city and she suspended the rape
investigation some days later with the
assessment that while the statements from S. W.
were credible, there was no evidence that a
crime had been committed.
But then the case really took off. Why?
Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had
conducted the questioning wrote her an email
telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W.
What did the policewoman change?
We don’t know, because the first statement was
directly written over in the computer program
and no longer exists. We only know that the
original statement, according to the chief
public prosecutor, apparently did not contain
any indication that a crime had been committed.
In the edited form it says that the two had had
sex several times – consensual and with a
condom. But in the morning, according to the
revised statement, the woman woke up because he
tried to penetrate her without a condom. She
asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.»
Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and
allows him to continue. The statement was edited
without the involvement of the woman in question
and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated
piece of evidence out of which the Swedish
authorities then constructed a story of rape.
Why would the Swedish authorities do
something like that?
The timing is decisive: In late July, Wikileaks –
in cooperation with the «New York Times», the «Guardian»
and «Der Spiegel» – published the «Afghan
War Diary». It was one of the largest leaks
in the history of the U.S. military. The U.S.
immediately demanded that its allies inundate
Assange with criminal cases. We aren’t familiar
with all of the correspondence, but Stratfor, a
security consultancy that works for the U.S.
government, advised American officials
apparently to deluge Assange
with all kinds of criminal cases for the next
25 years.
2. Assange contacts the Swedish judiciary several times to make a statement – but he is turned down
Why didn’t Assange turn himself into the
police at the time?
He did. I mentioned that earlier.
Then please elaborate.
Assange learned about the rape allegations from
the press. He established contact with the
police so he could make a statement. Despite the
scandal having reached the public, he was only
allowed to do so nine days later, after the
accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer
being pursued. But proceedings related to the
sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On
Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police
station to make a statement. He was questioned
by the same policeman who had since ordered that
revision of the statement had been given by
S. W. At the beginning of the conversation,
Assange said he was ready to make a statement,
but added that he didn’t want to read about his
statement again in the press. That is his right,
and he was given assurances it would be granted.
But that same evening, everything was in the
newspapers again. It could only have come from
the authorities because nobody else was present
during his questioning. The intention was very
clearly that of besmirching his name.
Where did the story come from that
Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice
officials?
This version was manufactured, but it is not
consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to
hide, he would not have appeared at the police
station of his own free will. On the basis of
the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was
filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to
suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010,
the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal
representative by the name of Claes Borgström
was appointed to the two women at public cost.
The man was a law firm partner to the previous
justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose
supervision Swedish security personnel had
seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in
the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized
without any kind of legal proceedings and then
handed over to the CIA,
who proceeded to torture them. That shows
the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more
clearly. After the resumption of the rape
investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated
through his lawyer that he wished to respond to
the accusations. The public prosecutor
responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it
didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s
schedule, on another, the police official
responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his
lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to
go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he
was allowed to leave the country. The public
prosecutor’s office gave him written permission
to leave Sweden for short periods of time.
And then?
The point is: On the day that Julian Assange
left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t
clear if he was leaving for a short time or a
long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest.
He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from
Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his
laptops disappeared from his checked baggage.
When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested
an investigation from SAS, but the airline
apparently declined to provide any information
at all.
Why?
That is exactly the problem. In this case,
things are constantly happening that shouldn’t
actually be possible unless you look at them
from a different angle. Assange, in any case,
continued onward to London, but did not seek to
hide from the judiciary. Via his Swedish lawyer,
he offered public prosecutors several possible
dates for questioning in Sweden – this
correspondence exists. Then, the following
happened: Assange caught wind of the fact that a
secret criminal case had been opened against him
in the U.S. At the time,
it was not confirmed by the U.S., but today
we know that it was true. As of that moment,
Assange’s lawyer began saying that his client
was prepared to testify in Sweden, but he
demanded diplomatic assurance that Sweden would
not extradite him to the U.S.
Was that even a realistic scenario?
Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already
mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed
over two asylum applicants, both of whom were
registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any
legal proceedings. The abuse already started at
the Stockholm airport, where they were
mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt,
where they were tortured. We don’t know if they
were the only such cases. But we are aware of
these cases because the men survived. Both later
filed complaints with UN human rights agencies
and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay
each of them half a million dollars in damages.
Did Sweden agree to the demands
submitted by Assange?
The lawyers say that during the nearly seven
years in which Assange lived in the Ecuadorian
Embassy, they made over 30 offers to arrange for
Assange to visit Sweden – in exchange for a
guarantee that he would not be extradited to the
U.S. The Swedes declined to provide such a
guarantee by arguing that the U.S. had not made
a formal request for extradition.
What is your view of the demand made by
Assange’s lawyers?
Such diplomatic assurances are a routine
international practice. People request
assurances that they won’t be extradited to
places where there is a danger of serious human
rights violations, completely irrespective of
whether an extradition request has been filed by
the country in question or not. It is a
political procedure, not a legal one. Here’s an
example: Say France demands that Switzerland
extradite a Kazakh businessman who lives in
Switzerland but who is wanted by both France and
Kazakhstan on tax fraud allegations. Switzerland
sees no danger of torture in France, but does
believe such a danger exists in Kazakhstan. So,
Switzerland tells France: We’ll extradite the
man to you, but we want a diplomatic assurance
that he won’t be extradited onward to
Kazakhstan. The French response is not:
«Kazakhstan hasn’t even filed a request!»
Rather, they would, of course, grant such an
assurance. The arguments coming from Sweden were
tenuous at best. That is one part of it. The
other, and I say this on the strength of all of
my experience behind the scenes of standard
international practice: If a country refuses to
provide such a diplomatic assurance, then all
doubts about the good intentions of the country
in question are justified. Why shouldn’t Sweden
provide such assurances? From a legal
perspective, after all, the U.S. has absolutely
nothing to do with Swedish sex offense
proceedings.
Why didn’t Sweden want to offer such an
assurance?
You just have to look at how the case was run:
For Sweden, it was never about the interests of
the two women. Even after his request for
assurances that he would not be extradited,
Assange still wanted to testify. He said: If you
cannot guarantee that I won’t be extradited,
then I am willing to be questioned in London or
via video link.
But is it normal, or even legally
acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to
a different country for such an interrogation?
That is a further indication that Sweden was
never interested in finding the truth. For
exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there
is a cooperation treaty between the United
Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish
officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa,
to conduct interrogations or that such
questioning can take place via video link.
During the period of time in question, such
questioning between Sweden and England took
place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian
Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was
essential for him to appear in person.
3. When the highest Swedish court finally forced public prosecutors in Stockholm to either file charges or suspend the case, the British authorities demanded: «Don’t get cold feet!!»
Why was that?
There is only a single explanation for
everything – for the refusal to grant diplomatic
assurances, for the refusal to question him in
London: They wanted to apprehend him so they
could extradite him to the U.S. The number of
breaches of law that accumulated in Sweden
within just a few weeks during the preliminary
criminal investigation is simply grotesque. The
state assigned a legal adviser to the women who
told them that the criminal interpretation of
what they experienced was up to the state, and
no longer up to them. When their legal adviser
was asked about contradictions between the
women’s testimony and the narrative adhered to
by public officials, the legal adviser said, in
reference to the women: «ah, but they’re not
lawyers.» But for five long years the Swedish
prosecution avoids questioning Assange regarding
the purported rape, until his lawyers finally
petitioned Sweden’s Supreme Court to force the
public prosecution to either press charges or
close the case. When the Swedes told the UK that
they may be forced to abandon the case, the
British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare
get cold feet!!»
Are you serious?
Yes, the British, or more specifically the Crown
Prosecution Service, wanted to prevent Sweden
from abandoning the case at all costs. Though
really, the English should have been happy that
they would no longer have to spend millions in
taxpayer money to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy
under constant surveillance to prevent Assange’s
escape.
Why were the British so eager to prevent
the Swedes from closing the case?
We have to stop believing that there was really
an interest in leading an investigation into a
sexual offense. What Wikileaks did is a threat
to the political elite in the U.S., Britain,
France and Russia in equal measure. Wikileaks
publishes secret state information – they are
opposed to classification. And in a world, even
in so-called mature democracies, where secrecy
has become rampant, that is seen as a
fundamental threat. Assange made it clear that
countries are no longer interested today in
legitimate confidentiality, but in the
suppression of important information about
corruption and crimes. Take the archetypal
Wikileaks case from the leaks supplied by
Chelsea Manning: The so-called «Collateral
Murder» video. (Eds. Note: On April 5, 2010,
Wikileaks
published a classified video
from the U.S. military which showed the murder
of several people in Baghdad by U.S. soldiers,
including two employees of the news agency
Reuters.) As a long-time legal adviser to
the International Committee of the Red Cross and
delegate in war zones, I can tell you: The video
undoubtedly documents a war crime. A helicopter
crew simply mowed down a bunch of people. It
could even be that one or two of these people
was carrying a weapon, but injured people were
intentionally targeted. That is a war crime.
«He’s wounded,» you can hear one American
saying. «I’m firing.» And then they laugh. Then
a van drives up to save the wounded. The driver
has two children with him. You can hear the
soldiers say: Well it’s their fault for bringing
their kids into a battle. And then they open
fire. The father and the wounded are immediately
killed, though the children survive with serious
injuries. Through the publication of the video,
we became direct witnesses to a criminal,
unconscionable massacre.
What should a constitutional democracy
do in such a situation?
A constitutional democracy would probably
investigate Chelsea Manning for violating
official secrecy because she passed the video
along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go
after Assange, because he published the video in
the public interest, consistent with the
practices of classic investigative journalism.
More than anything, though, a constitutional
democracy would investigate and punish the war
criminals. These soldiers belong behind bars.
But no criminal investigation was launched into
a single one of them. Instead, the man who
informed the public is locked away in
pre-extradition detention in London and is
facing a possible sentence in the U.S. of up to
175 years in prison. That is a completely absurd
sentence. By comparison: The main war criminals
in the Yugoslavia tribunal received sentences of
45 years. One-hundred-seventy-five years in
prison in conditions that have been found to be
inhumane by the UN Special Rapporteur and by
Amnesty International. But the really horrifying
thing about this case is the lawlessness that
has developed: The powerful can kill without
fear of punishment and journalism is transformed
into espionage. It is becoming a crime to tell
the truth.
What awaits Assange once he is
extradited?
He will not receive a trial consistent with the
rule of law. That’s another reason why his
extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will
receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria,
Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where
the U.S. tries all national security cases. The
choice of location is not by coincidence,
because the jury members must be chosen in
proportion to the local population, and
85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the
national security community – at the CIA, the
NSA, the Defense Department and the State
Department. When people are tried for harming
national security in front of a jury like that,
the verdict is clear from the very beginning.
The cases are always tried in front of the same
judge behind closed doors and on the strength of
classified evidence. Nobody has ever been
acquitted there in a case like that. The result
being that most defendants reach a settlement,
in which they admit to partial guilt so as to
receive a milder sentence.
You are saying that Julian Assange won’t
receive a fair trial in the United States?
Without doubt. For as long as employees of the
American government obey the orders of their
superiors, they can participate in wars of
aggression, war crimes and torture knowing full
well that they will never have to answer to
their actions. What happened to the lessons
learned in the Nuremberg Trials? I have worked
long enough in conflict zones to know that
mistakes happen in war. It’s not always
unscrupulous criminal acts. A lot of it is the
result of stress, exhaustion and panic. That’s
why I can absolutely understand when a
government says: We’ll bring the truth to light
and we, as a state, take full responsibility for
the harm caused, but if blame cannot be directly
assigned to individuals, we will not be imposing
draconian punishments. But it is extremely
dangerous when the truth is suppressed and
criminals are not brought to justice. In the
1930s, Germany and Japan left the League of
Nations. Fifteen years later, the world lay in
ruins. Today, the U.S. has withdrawn from the UN
Human Rights Council, and neither the
«Collateral Murder» massacre nor the CIA torture
following 9/11 nor the war of aggression against
Iraq have led to criminal investigations. Now,
the United Kingdom is following that example.
The Security and Intelligence Committee in the
country’s own parliament published two extensive
reports in 2018 showing that Britain was much
more deeply involved in the secret CIA torture
program than previously believed. The committee
recommended a formal investigation. The first
thing that Boris Johnson did after he became
prime minister was to annul that investigation.
4. In the UK, violations of bail conditions are generally only punished with monetary fines or, at most, a couple of days behind bars. But Assange was given 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison without the ability to prepare his own defense
In April, Julian Assange was dragged out
of the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.
What is your view of these events?
In 2017, a new government was elected in
Ecuador. In response, the U.S. wrote a letter
indicating they were eager to cooperate with
Ecuador. There was, of course, a lot of money at
stake, but there was one hurdle in the way:
Julian Assange. The message was that the U.S.
was prepared to cooperate if Ecuador handed
Assange over to the U.S. At that point, the
Ecuadorian Embassy began ratcheting up the
pressure on Assange. They made his life
difficult. But he stayed. Then Ecuador voided
his amnesty and gave Britain a green light to
arrest him. Because the previous government had
granted him Ecuadorian citizenship, Assange’s
passport also had to be revoked, because the
Ecuadorian constitution forbids the extradition
of its own citizens. All that took place
overnight and without any legal proceedings.
Assange had no opportunity to make a statement
or have recourse to legal remedy. He was
arrested by the British and taken before a
British judge that same day, who convicted him
of violating his bail.
What do you make of this accelerated
verdict?
Assange only had 15 minutes to prepare with his
lawyer. The trial itself also lasted just
15 minutes. Assange’s lawyer plopped a thick
file down on the table and made a formal
objection to one of the judges for conflict of
interest because her husband had been the
subject of Wikileaks exposures in 35 instances.
But the lead judge brushed aside the concerns
without examining them further. He said accusing
his colleague of a conflict of interest was an
affront. Assange himself only uttered one
sentence during the entire proceedings: «I plead
not guilty.» The judge turned to him and said:
«You are a narcissist who cannot get beyond his
own self-interest. I convict you for bail
violation.»
If I understand you correctly: Julian
Assange never had a chance from the very
beginning?
That’s the point. I’m not saying Julian Assange
is an angel or a hero. But he doesn’t have to
be. We are talking about human rights and not
about the rights of heroes or angels. Assange is
a person, and he has the right to defend himself
and to be treated in a humane manner. Regardless
of what he is accused of, Assange has the right
to a fair trial. But he has been deliberately
denied that right – in Sweden, the U.S., Britain
and Ecuador. Instead, he was left to rot for
nearly seven years in limbo in a room. Then, he
was suddenly dragged out and convicted within
hours and without any preparation for a bail
violation that consisted of him having received
diplomatic asylum from another UN member state
on the basis of political persecution, just as
international law intends and just as countless
Chinese, Russian and other dissidents have done
in Western embassies. It is obvious that what we
are dealing with here is political persecution.
In Britain, bail violations seldom lead to
prison sentences – they are generally subject
only to fines. Assange, by contrast, was
sentenced in summary proceedings to 50 weeks in
a maximum-security prison – clearly a
disproportionate penalty that had only a single
purpose: Holding Assange long enough for the
U.S. to prepare their espionage case against
him.
As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture,
what do you have to say about his current
conditions of imprisonment?
Britain has denied Julian Assange contact with
his lawyers in the U.S., where he is the subject
of secret proceedings. His British lawyer has
also complained that she hasn’t even had
sufficient access to her client to go over court
documents and evidence with him. Into October,
he was not allowed to have a single document
from his case file with him in his cell. He was
denied his fundamental right to prepare his own
defense, as guaranteed by the European
Convention on Human Rights. On top of that is
the almost total solitary confinement and the
totally disproportionate punishment for a bail
violation. As soon as he would leave his cell,
the corridors were emptied to prevent him from
having contact with any other inmates.
And all that because of a simple bail
violation? At what point does imprisonment
become torture?
Julian Assange has been intentionally
psychologically tortured by Sweden, Britain,
Ecuador and the U.S. First through the highly
arbitrary handling of proceedings against him.
The way Sweden pursued the case, with active
assistance from Britain, was aimed at putting
him under pressure and trapping him in the
embassy. Sweden was never interested in finding
the truth and helping these women, but in
pushing Assange into a corner. It has been an
abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a
person into a position where he is unable to
defend himself. On top of that come the
surveillance measures, the insults, the
indignities and the attacks by politicians from
these countries, up to and including death
threats. This constant abuse of state power has
triggered serious stress and anxiety in Assange
and has resulted in measurable cognitive and
neurological harm. I visited Assange in his cell
in London in May 2019 together with two
experienced, widely respected doctors who are
specialized in the forensic and psychological
examination of torture victims. The diagnosis
arrived at by the two doctors was clear: Julian
Assange displays the typical symptoms of
psychological torture. If he doesn’t receive
protection soon, a rapid deterioration of his
health is likely, and death could be one
outcome.
Half a year after Assange was placed in
pre-extradition detention in Britain, Sweden
quietly abandoned the case against him in
November 2019, after nine long years. Why then?
The Swedish state spent almost a decade
intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the
public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly
abandoned the case against him on the strength
of the same argument that the first Stockholm
prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially
suspended the investigation after just five
days: While the woman’s statement was credible,
there was no proof that a crime had been
committed. It is an unbelievable scandal. But
the timing was no accident. On Nov. 11, an
official document that I had sent to the Swedish
government two months before was made public.
In the document, I made a request to the
Swedish government to provide explanations for
around 50 points pertaining to the human rights
implications of the way they were handling the
case. How is it possible that the press was
immediately informed despite the prohibition
against doing so? How is it possible that a
suspicion was made public even though the
questioning hadn’t yet taken place? How is it
possible for you to say that a rape occurred
even though the woman involved contests that
version of events? On the day the document was
made public, I received a paltry response from
Sweden: The government has no further comment on
this case.
What does that answer mean?
It is an admission of guilt.
How so?
As UN Special Rapporteur, I have been tasked by
the international community of nations with
looking into complaints lodged by victims of
torture and, if necessary, with requesting
explanations or investigations from governments.
That is the daily work I do with all UN member
states. From my experience, I can say that
countries that act in good faith are almost
always interested in supplying me with the
answers I need to highlight the legality of
their behavior. When a country like Sweden
declines to answer questions submitted by the UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the
government is aware of the illegality of its
behavior and wants to take no responsibility for
its behavior. They pulled the plug and abandoned
the case a week later because they knew I would
not back down. When countries like Sweden allow
themselves to be manipulated like that, then our
democracies and our human rights face a
fundamental threat.
You believe that Sweden was fully aware
of what it was doing?
Yes. From my perspective, Sweden very clearly
acted in bad faith. Had they acted in good
faith, there would have been no reason to refuse
to answer my questions. The same holds true for
the British: Following my visit to Assange in
May 2019, they took six months to answer me – in
a single-page letter, which was primarily
limited to rejecting all accusations of torture
and all inconsistencies in the legal
proceedings. If you’re going to play games like
that, then what’s the point of my mandate? I am
the Special Rapporteur on Torture for the United
Nations. I have a mandate to ask clear questions
and to demand answers. What is the legal basis
for denying someone their fundamental right to
defend themselves? Why is a man who is neither
dangerous nor violent held in solitary
confinement for several months when UN standards
legally prohibit solitary confinement for
periods extending beyond 15 days? None of these
UN member states launched an investigation, nor
did they answer my questions or even demonstrate
an interest in dialogue.
5. A prison sentence of 175 years for investigative journalism: The precedent the USA vs. Julian Assange case could set
What does it mean when UN member states
refuse to provide information to their own
Special Rapporteur on Torture?
That it is a prearranged affair. A show trial is
to be used to make an example of Julian Assange.
The point is to intimidate other journalists.
Intimidation, by the way, is one of the primary
purposes for the use of torture around the
world. The message to all of us is: This is what
will happen to you if you emulate the Wikileaks
model. It is a model that is so dangerous
because it is so simple: People who obtain
sensitive information from their governments or
companies transfer that information to Wikileaks,
but the whistleblower remains anonymous. The
reaction shows how great the threat is perceived
to be: Four democratic countries joined forces –
the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to
leverage their power to portray one man as a
monster so that he could later be burned at the
stake without any outcry. The case is a huge
scandal and represents the failure of Western
rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it
will be a death sentence for freedom of the
press.
What would this possible precedent mean
for the future of journalism?
On a practical level, it means that you, as a
journalist, must now defend yourself. Because if
investigative journalism is classified as
espionage and can be incriminated around the
world, then censorship and tyranny will follow.
A murderous system is being created before our
very eyes. War crimes and torture are not being
prosecuted. YouTube videos are circulating in
which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi
women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is
investigating it. At the same time, a person who
exposes such things is being threatened with
175 years in prison. For an entire decade, he
has been inundated with accusations that cannot
be proven and are breaking him. And nobody is
being held accountable. Nobody is taking
responsibility. It marks an erosion of the
social contract. We give countries power and
delegate it to governments – but in return, they
must be held accountable for how they exercise
that power. If we don’t demand that they be held
accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or
later. Humans are not democratic by their
nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored.
Corruption is the result if we do not insist
that power be monitored.
You’re saying that the targeting of
Assange threatens the very core of press
freedoms.
Let’s see where we will be in 20 years if
Assange is convicted – what you will still be
able to write then as a journalist. I am
convinced that we are in serious danger of
losing press freedoms. It’s already happening:
Suddenly, the headquarters of ABC News in
Australia was raided in connection with the
«Afghan War Diary». The reason? Once again, the
press uncovered misconduct by representatives of
the state. In order for the division of powers
to work, the state must be monitored by the
press as the fourth estate. WikiLeaks is a the
logical consequence of an ongoing process of
expanded secrecy: If the truth can no longer be
examined because everything is kept secret, if
investigation reports on the U.S. government’s
torture policy are kept secret and when even
large sections of the published summary are
redacted, leaks are at some point inevitably the
result. WikiLeaks is the consequence of rampant
secrecy and reflects the lack of transparency in
our modern political system. There are, of
course, areas where secrecy can be vital. But if
we no longer know what our governments are doing
and the criteria they are following, if crimes
are no longer being investigated, then it
represents a grave danger to societal integrity.
What are the consequences?
As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and,
before that, as a Red Cross delegate, I have
seen lots of horrors and violence and have seen
how quickly peaceful countries like Yugoslavia
or Rwanda can transform into infernos. At the
roots of such developments are always a lack of
transparency and unbridled political or economic
power combined with the naivete, indifference
and malleability of the population. Suddenly,
that which always happened to the other –
unpunished torture, rape, expulsion and murder –
can just as easily happen to us or our children.
And nobody will care. I can promise you that.
No comments:
Post a Comment