Several large organizations say they are “relieved” but regret that the British court did not contest the merits of the American proceedings, which requested the extradition of the founder of WikiLeaks.
Le Monde
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks whose extradition the United States is asking for in order to try him for the publication of confidential documents of the American army , will not be extradited. This is what a British court decided on Monday, January 4, at the end of a long and complex trial in London, where Julian Assange is currently imprisoned.
If this decision was welcomed by defenders of Mr Assange, it does not alleviate the concerns of organizations defending freedom of expression: they believe that the detail of the British decision set, in fact, a dangerous precedent.
“We welcome the fact that Julian Assange will not be sent to the United States, and that the court has recognized that due to his medical situation he would be at risk of ill-treatment in the American prison system. But he should never have been prosecuted at all “, writes Amnesty International Director Europe , Nils Muiznieks.
” Victory “for Mr. Assange but defeated for journalism
The court in fact considered that the mental health of Mr. Assange, considered to be at high risk of suicide, was incompatible with an extradition to the United States. On the other hand, and this is the point which crystallizes the concern of his supporters, the court did not contest the merits of the American request for extradition.
Julien Assange was mainly prosecuted in title of the Espionage Act, a US law dating from the First World War and designed to sanction collusion with the enemy. This text, which leaves only a very limited place for the rights of the defense, has been used on several occasions against whistleblowers in recent years, and is widely considered to be an infringement of press freedom.
“We are extremely disappointed that the court did not take this opportunity to defend press freedom”, writes the director of international campaigns from Reporters Without Borders, Rebecca Vincent . “We dispute the judge’s reading that this trial is not a political trial (…). This decision opens the door to future similar complaints, and will cause self-censorship for journalists covering national security issues.”
Mr. Assange’s legal team had focused part of its defense on this point, believing that if he was tried in the United States according to these standards, his fundamental rights would be violated. The British decision “is a victory for Julian Assange, but is not a victory for journalism”, thus estimated Kristinn Hrafnsson, of WikiLeaks .