Britain’s defiance of the UN investigation into Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for upholding international law, a former United Nations official has warned.
Prof Mads Andenas, who chaired the UN working group on arbitrary detention (UNWGAD), has criticised the government’s dismissal of the report on the WikiLeaks founder.
His warning comes as Assange’s lawyers pressed the Swedish authorities to overturn the arrest warrant for the Australian, who has been in the UK resisting removal to Stockholm since 2010.
Assange, who has sought asylum in the Ecuador embassy, is wanted in Sweden for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations, which he denies. This month, the UNWGAD formally found that he has been subject to arbitrary detention, partially on the grounds that Swedish prosecutors used disproportionate methods, including a European arrest warrant, rather than initially interviewing him in the UK.
Philip Hammond, the UK foreign secretary, dismissed the UN report as “ridiculous”, called it “flawed in law” and described Assange as a fugitive from justice. Many senior British lawyers supported his defiance and stressed that the report was not binding on the UK courts.
But Prof Andenas, who chaired the early stages of the UNWGAD inquiry into Assange and is now a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian: “Rulings by the UNWGAD are not always followed by states, but rarely do they result in such personal attacks as made by UK politicians after the Assange opinion.
“I know that the words used by the foreign secretary and the prime minister were not the ones provided by the the civil servants advising on human rights and international law. The UK politicians aimed at weakening the authority of the UN body for short-term opportunistic gain.
“I fear that these politicians have weakened the international community’s possibility to protect some of the most vulnerable victims of human rights violations. Their words have circulated among the states responsible for the worst human rights violations. The words of these UK politicians will cost life and human suffering.
“The UK may lobby for some support when the matter is reported to the UN Human Rights Council, but the UK will certainly be criticised by other states for its response, and clearly deserve that. The damage done to the UK in the UN and its moral authority in human rights issues is another matter, but there is no doubt about the damage done to the authority of the UK.”
Andenas is not the only international lawyer to express concerns about the UK response. Dinah PoKempner, general counsel of Human Rights Watch, described as “deplorable” the “rhetorical parries from the UK and Swedish governments, who both stated not just disagreement, but that the UNWGAD opinion would have absolutely no effect on their actions”.
She added: “This is not what one expects from democratic governments who usually support the UN mechanisms and international law.”
The UK government said at the time: “This changes nothing. We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. The UK has already made clear to the UN that we will formally contest the working group’s opinion.”
The UNWGAD was made up a five-person panel. Three members supported the report, one dissented and the fifth member, an Australian, excused themselves from the procedure.
