PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
TRADE AND INTEGRATION
STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
ON THE ASYLUM REQUEST OF JULIAN ASSANGE
On June 19, 2012, the
Australian citizen Julian Assange, showed up on the headquarters of the
Ecuadorian Embassy in London, with the purpose of requesting diplomatic
protection of the Ecuadorian State, invoking the norms on political asylum in
force. The requester has based his petition on the fear of an eventual
political persecution of which he may be a victim in a third State, which can
use his extradition to the Swedish Kingdom to obtain in turn the ulterior
extradition to such country.
The Government of Ecuador,
faithful to the asylum procedure, and attributing the greatest seriousness to
this case, has examined and assessed all the aspects implied, particularly the
arguments presented by Mr. Assange backing up the fear he feels before a
situation that this person considers as a threat to his life, personal safety
and freedom.
It is important to point out
that Mr. Assange has made the decision to request asylum and protection from
Ecuador because of the accusations that, according to him, have been formulated
for supposed “espionage and betrayal” with which the citizen exposes the fear
he feels about the possibility of being surrendered to the United States
authorities by the British, Swedish or Australian authorities, thus it is a
country, says Mr. Assange, that persecutes him because of the disclosure of
compromising information for the United States Government. He equally
manifests, being “victim of a persecution in different countries, which derives
not only from his ideas and actions, but from his work by publishing
information compromising the powerful ones, by publishing the truth and, with
that, unveiling the corruption and serious human rights abuses of citizens
around the world”.
Therefore, for the
requester, the imputation of politic felonies is what backs up his request for
asylum, thus in his criteria, he faces a situation that means to him an
imminent danger which he cannot resist. With the purpose of explaining the fear
he has of a possible political persecution, and that this possibility ends up
turning into a situation of impairment and violation of his rights, with risk
for his integrity, personal security and freedom, the Government of Ecuador
considered the following:
1. That Julian Assange is a communication professional
internationally awarded for his struggle on freedom of expression, freedom of
press and human rights in general;
2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global population
privileged documented information that was generated by different sources, and
that affected officials, countries and organizations;
3. That there are serious indications of retaliation by
the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr.
Assange, retaliation that can put at risk his safety, integrity and even his
life;
4. That, despite the diplomatic efforts carried out by
the Ecuadorian State, the countries from which guarantees have been requested
to protect the life and safety of Mr. Assange, have denied to provide them;
5. That, there is a certainty of the Ecuadorian
authorities that an extradition to a third country outside the European Union
is feasible without the proper guarantees for his safety and personal
integrity;
6. That the judicial evidence shows clearly that, given
an extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial,
he could be judge by a special or military court, and it is not unlikely that
he would receive a cruel and demeaning treatment and he would be condemned to a
life sentence or the death penalty, which would not respect his human rights;
7. That, even when
indeed Mr. Assange has to respond to the investigation open in Sweden, Ecuador
is aware that the Swedish prosecutor’s office has had a contradictory attitude
that prevented Mr. Assange from the total exercise of the legitimate right to
defense;
8. That Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights
of Mr. Assange have been infringed during that investigation:
9. That Ecuador has verify that Mr. Assange does not
count with the adequate protection and help that he should receive from the
State of which he is a citizen;
10. That, according to several public statements and
diplomatic communications made by officials from Great Britain, Sweden and the
United States, it is deduced that those governments would not respect the
international conventions and treaties and would give priority to internal laws
of secondary hierarchy, contravening explicit norms of universal application;
and,
11. That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to preventive prison
in Sweden (as it is usual in that country), it would initiate a chain of events
that will prevent the adoption of preventive measures to avoid his extradition
to a third country.
Accordingly, the Ecuadorian
Government considers that these arguments back up Julian Assange’s fears, thus
he can be a victim of political persecution, as a consequence of his determined
defense to freedom of expression and freedom of press, as well as his position
of condemn to the abuses that the power infers in different countries, aspects
that make Mr. Assange think that, in any given moment, a situation may come
where his life, safety or personal integrity will be in danger. This fear has
leaded him to exercise his human right of seeking and receiving asylum in the
Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.
Article 41 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador defines clearly the right to grant
asylum. Regarding those dispositions, the rights to asylum and shelter are
fully recognized, according to the law and international human rights
instruments. According to such constitutional norm:
“People who are in a
situation of asylum and shelter will enjoy special protection that guarantees
the full exercise of their rights. The State will respect and guarantee the
principle of no return, aside from the humanitarian and judicial emergency
assistance”.
Moreover, the right to
asylum is recognized in the Article 4.7 of the Organic Law of Foreign Service
of 2006, which determines the faculty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade
and Integration of Ecuador to know the cases of diplomatic asylum, according to
the laws, the treaties, the rights and the international practice.
It is important to outline
that our country has outstood over the last years for welcoming a huge number
of people who have requested territorial asylum or refuge, respecting with no
restriction the principle of no return and no discrimination, while adopting
measures towards granting the refugee status in an efficient way, bearing in
mind the circumstances of the requesters, most of them Colombians escaping the
armed conflict in their country. The High Commissioner of the United Nations
for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and has highlighted the
meaningful fact that these people have not been confined to refugee camps in
this country, but they are integrated to society, in full enjoyment of their
human rights and guarantees.
Ecuador states the right to
asylum in the universal brochure of human rights and believes, therefore, that
the effective application of this right requires the international cooperation
that our countries can provide, without which its enouncement would be
unfruitful, and the institution would be completely ineffective. For these
reasons, and bearing in mind the obligation that all the States have assumed to
collaborate in the protection and promotion of Human Rights, as it is
established in the United Nations Letter, invites the British Government to
provide its contingent to reach this purpose.
For those effects, Ecuador
has been able to verify, in the course of analysis of the judicial institutions
regarding the asylum, that to the confirmation of this right attend fundamental
principles of general international law, which because of their importance have
universal value and scope, for they are consistent with the general interest of
the international community as a whole, and count with the full recognition of
all the States. Those principles, which are contemplated in the different
international instruments, are the following:
a) The asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human
right and creates obligations erga omnes,
meaning, “for all”, the States.
b) The diplomatic asylum, the refuge (territorial
asylum), and the right to not being extradited, expulsed, surrendered or
transferred, are comparable human rights, thus they are based on the same
principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination with no
distinction of unfavorable character for reasons of race, color, sex, language,
religion or belief, political or other type of opinions, national or social
origin, birth or other condition or similar criteria.
c) All these forms of protection are ruled by the pro homine principles (meaning, most
favorable to the human being), equality, universality, indivisibility,
complementarity, and inter dependency.
d) The protection
is produced when the State which grants the asylum, refuge or requested, or the
protective potency, considers that there is a risk or fear that the protected
person may be a victim of political persecution, or are charged with political
felonies.
e) It corresponds
to the State which grants the asylum to qualify the causes of asylum and, in
the case of extradition, to value the evidences.
f) Regardless of the modality or form in which it is
presented, the asylum has always the same cause and the same legal object,
meaning, political persecution, which is a legal cause; and to safe guard the
life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person which is a legal
object.
g) The right to asylum is a fundamental human right,
therefore, it belongs to the ius cogens,
meaning, the system of imperative norms of right recognized by the
international community as a whole, which does not admit a contrary agreement,
annulling the treaties and dispositions of international law against it.
h) In the unforeseen cases on the law in force, the human
being is under the safe guard of the humanity principles and the demands of the
public conscience or under the protection and empire of the principles of the
law of people derived from the established uses, of the humanity principles and
the dictates of the public conscience.
i)
The
lack of international convention or internal legislation of the States cannot
be legitimately claimed to limit, impinge or deny the right to asylum.
j)
The
norms and principles that rule the rights to asylum, refuge, no extradition, no
surrender, no expulsion and no transference are convergent, to the necessary
extent to perfect the protection and providing it with the most efficiency. In
this sense, the international law of human rights, the right to asylum and
refuge and the humanitarian law are complementary.
k) The rights of protection to the human being are based
on ethical principles and values universally admitted and, therefore, they have
a humanitarian, social, solidarity, assistant and pacific character.
l)
All
the States have the duty to promote the progressive development of the
international law of human rights through effective national and international
laws.
Ecuador considers that the
right applicable to Mr. Julian Assange’s case is integrated by the whole
principles, norms, mechanisms and procedures foreseen on the international
instruments of human rights (regional or universal), which contemplate among
their dispositions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political
reasons; the Conventions that regulate the right to asylum and the right of
refugees, and that recognize the right to not be surrendered, returned or
expulsed when there are founded fears of political persecution; the Conventions
that regulate extradition and that recognize the right to not be extradited when
this measure can mask political persecution; and the Conventions that regulate
the humanitarian right, and that recognize the right not to be transferred when
there is a risk of political persecution. All these modalities of asylum and
international protection are justified by the need to protect this person of an
eventual political persecution, or a possible imputation of political felonies
and/ or felonies connected to these last ones, which, to Ecuador’s judgment,
not only would put at risk the life of Mr. Assange, but would also represent a
serious injustice committed against him.
It is undeniable that the
States, having contracted with so numerous and substantive international
instruments- many of them judicially binding- the obligation to provide protection
or asylum to people persecuted for political reasons, have expressed their will
to establish a judicial institution of protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, founded as a right in a generally accepted practice,
which gives those obligations an imperative character, erga omnes that, being bonded to respect, protection and
progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms, are a part of
the ius cogens. Some of those
instruments are mentioned bellow:
a) United
Nations Letter of 1945,
Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: obligation of all the members to
cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
b) Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political
reasons (Article 14);
c) American
Declaration of Men’s Rights and Duties of 1948: the right to seek and enjoy asylum in any
country, for political reasons (Article 27);
d) Geneva
Agreement of August 12,
1949, regarding the Due Protection of Civilians in War Times: in no case it is
due to transfer the protected person to a country where they can fear
persecutions because of their political opinions (Article 45);
e) Agreement
on the Refugees Statute
of 1951, and its New York Protocol of 1967: forbids to return or expulse
refugees to countries where their life and freedom may be in danger ( Article
33.1);
f) Convention
on Diplomatic Asylum
of 1954: the State has the right to grant asylum and to qualify the nature of
the felony or reasons of persecution (Article 4);
g) Convention
on Territorial Asylum
of 1954: the State has the right to admit in its territory people it judges
convenient (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, opinions or
political filiations, or by actions that may be considered political felonies
(Article 2), not being able the asylum granting State, to return or expulsed
the asylum seeker that is persecuted for political reasons or felonies (Article
3); in the same way, the extradition does not proceed when it is about people
who, according to the required State, are persecuted for political felonies, or
for common felonies that are committed with political purposes, nor when the
extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
h) European
Extradition Agreement
of 1957: forbids the extradition if the requested Part considers that the
felony imputed has a political character (Article 3.1);
i)
2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967: establishes the granting of asylum to the
people that have such right according to Article 14 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, including people who fight against colonialism
(Article 1.1). The denial of admission, expulsion or return to any State where
they can be object of persecution is forbidden (Article 3.1);
j)
Vienna Convention on the Right of the Treaties of 1969: establishes that the norms and imperative
principles of general international right do not admit a contrary agreement,
being null the treaty that at the moment of its conclusion enters in conflict
with one of these norms (Article 53), if a peremptory norm of the same
character arises, every existent treaty that enters in conflict with that norm
is null and ended (Article 64). As far as the application of these articles,
the Convention authorizes the States to demand their accomplishment before the
International Court of Justice, with no requisition of conformity by the
demanded State, accepting the tribunal’s jurisdiction (Article 66 b). The human
rights are norms of the ius cogens.
k) American
Convention on Human Rights
of 1969: the right to seek and receive asylum for political reasons (Article
22. 7);
l)
European Agreement for the Repression of Terrorism of 1977: the required State has the faculty to deny
extradition when there is danger of persecution or punishment of the person for
their political opinions (Article 5);
m) Inter
American Convention for Extradition of 1981: the extradition does not proceed when the
requested has been judge or condemned, or is going to be judge before an
exception tribunal or ad hoc in the required State (Article 4.3); when, with
arrangement to the qualification of the required State, it deals with political
felonies, or connected felonies or common felonies persecuted with political
purposes; when from the case’s circumstances, can be inferred that the
persecuted purposes is mediated for considerations of race, religion or
nationality, or that the situation of the person is at risk of being aggravated
for one of those reasons (Article 4.5). The Article 6 disposes, regarding the
Right to Asylum, that “none of the exposed in the present Convention may be
interpreted as a limitation to the right to asylum, when this proceeds”.
n) African
Letter of Men and People’s Rights of 1981: the right of the persecuted individual to seek and obtain
asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
o) Cartagena
Declaration of 1984:
recognizes the right to refuge, to not being rejected in the borders and to not
being returned;
p) Fundamental
Rights Letter of the European Union of 2000: establishes the right to diplomatic and
consular protection. Every citizen of the Union may seek refuge, in the
territory of a third country, in which the Member State of nationality is not
represented, to the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any
member State, in the same conditions of the nationals of that State (Article
46).
The Government of Ecuador
considers important to outline that the norms and principles recognized in the
international instruments mentioned, and in other multi lateral agreements,
have preeminence over the internal laws of the States, thus such treaties are
based in a universally oriented normative by intangible principles, from which
a greater respect is derived, guarantee and protection of human rights against
unilateral attitudes of the same States. This would subtract efficiency to the
international law, which otherwise has to be strengthen, so the respect of
fundamental rights is consolidated in function of integration and ecumenical
character.
On the other hand, since
Julian Assange requested political asylum to Ecuador, dialogues of high
diplomatic level have been held, with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United
States.
In the course of these
conversations, our country has appealed to obtain from the United Kingdom the
strictest guarantees so Julian Assange faces, with no obstacles, the judicial
process open in Sweden. Such guarantees include that, once treated his legal
responsibilities in Sweden, he would not be extradited to a third country; this
is, the guarantee that the specialty figure will not be applied. Unfortunately,
and despite the repeated exchanges of texts, the United Kingdom never gave
proof of wanting to achieve political compromises, limiting to repeat the
content of the legal texts.
Julian Assange’s lawyers
requested the Swedish justice to take statements of Julian Assange in the
premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador translated officially to
the Swedish authorities its will to facilitate this interview with the purpose
of not intervening or obstacle the judicial process that is carried out in
Sweden. This is a perfectly legal and possible measure. Sweden did not accept
it.
On the other hand, Ecuador
searched the possibility that the Swedish Government would establish guarantees
to avoid the onward extradition of Assange to the United States. Again, the
Swedish Government rejected any commitment on that sense.
Finally, Ecuador directed a
communication to the Government of the United States to know officially its
position on the Assange’s case. The consults referred to the following:
1. If there is a legal process in course or the intention
to carry out such process against Julian Assange and/ or the founders of the
Wikileaks organization;
2. In the case of the above being truth, what kind of
legislation, in which conditions and under which maximum penalties would those
people be subjected;
3. If there is the intention of requesting the
extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
The answer of the United
States has been that they cannot offer information on the Assange’s case, with
the allegation that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United
Kingdom.
With these antecedents, the
Government of Ecuador, faithful to its tradition to protect those who seek
shelter in its territory or in the premises of its diplomatic missions, has
decided to grant diplomatic asylum to the citizen Julian Assange, on the basis
of the request presented to the President of the Republic, through a written
communication dated in London on June 19, 2012, and complemented by a communication
dated in London on June 25, 2012, for which the Ecuadorian Government, after
carrying out a fair and objective assessment of the situation exposed by Mr.
Assange, attending his own sayings and argumentations, intakes the requester’s
fears, and assumes that there are indications that allow to assume that there
may be a political persecution, or that such persecution may be produced if the
opportune and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.
The Government of Ecuador
has the certainty that the British Government will know how to value the
justice and rectitude of the Ecuadorian position, and in consistency with these
arguments, trusts that the United Kingdom will offer as soon as possible the
guarantees or safe conducts necessaries and pertinent to the situation of the
asylum requester, so their Governments can honor with their actions the
fidelity they owe to the international laws and institutions that both nations
have contribute to shape along their common history.
It also trusts to maintain inalterable
the excellent bonds of friendship and mutual respect that unite Ecuador and the
United Kingdom and their respective people, confident as they are in the
promotion and defense of the same principles and values, and because they share
similar concerns about democracy, peace, Good Living, which can only be
possible if the fundamental rights of all people are respected.
Communication
No. 042
