Dedicated to documenting The Rise and Rise of WikiLeaks and the ingenious thought of its brilliant, cool, sexy, brave, selfless, fearless, exemplary and yes, heroic founder, Julian Assange, forever.

Blog begun June 9th 2011, updated occasionally.

Yes the hyperbole is intentional and tongue-in-cheek,
but nonetheless sincere and entirely factual,
as it just so happens :-D

Content added now and then.

How Sweden Raped Assange

…and, by extension, you and I.

Free e-book on the breathtaking abuse of process that is the Sweden vs. Assange non-case that has resulted in Australia’s first ever formally recognised political refugee fleeing persecution by a corrupted power. This will blow your mind - the facts speak for themselves.  Pass it on, donate as a gift, print and leave in public libraries and cafes, for fuck’s sake, spread the word, he hasn’t seen the sun for years:

Seriously terrifying shit:

(correct link updated 3rd April)

WikiLeaks: Call to Arms

" Why, in the 21st century, is the state of our world so dark?

Why, in the 21st century, is our world still so divided, mutually hostile, violent and corrupt?

Why, two centuries after the industrial revolution, do people still live in poverty, hunger, and die from preventable disease?

Why, in the age of the internet and instant global communication, is our world not coming together as one world, one tiny, crowded world, carrying one human family, with one common destiny?

Why, in the age of information, is information more tightly controlled and restricted than ever?

Why, half a century after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are nuclear weapons still kept on a hair trigger to annihilate all of civilization?

Why, half a century after the founding of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the outlawing of war, does this scourge continue to bring untold sorrow to humankind?

Why, in the 21st century, are one in three of us still suffering under tyrants and oppressive governments?

Why, in the 21st century, are even democratic societies falling into secrecy, corruption, fear, ignorance, prejudice, increasing authoritarianism, increasing inequality, control by vested interests, inaction and apathy?

Why, two centuries after Rousseau, two centuries after Jefferson, two centuries after Paine, two centuries after liberty, equality and fraternity, two centuries after Bolivar, a century after the war to end all wars, half a century after Gandhi, half a century after decolonization, two decades after Solidarność, two decades after the fall of the Berlin wall, more than a decade after the end of apartheid, after all that has come before us — why have we not yet learned?

Why, in the 21st century, is our world arranged so disastrously? Why have we governed so badly?

Why, in the 21st century, do these outrages continue?

Why, in the 21st century, do these outrages continue when they are universally regarded as abhorrent?

Why, in the 21st century, does the state of affairs around the globe bring so much sorrow to so many, when every human being recoils in horror at the suffering?

Why, amidst the everyday horrors faced by so many in our world, do so many remain alienated, disconnected, misinformed, distracted, apathetic, ignorant or repressed?

Why are we not yet one world?

Why is our world not yet a world that can reason?

Why is our world, in short, insane?

•         •         •

We say, we need to make the world sane.

We say, we need to make the world civilized — for human civilization depends on it.

We say — obviously! — we cannot do it alone; nor — obviously! — can one project or movement do it alone.

We say, in a world where actions are directed by the interests that concern every human being — empathy, compassion, respect, community, dignity, peace, kindness, tolerance — such insanities would simply not in good conscience be permitted to exist.

We say, in a world where citizens take an interest in, and participate in, decisions that affect them — in a world that lives up to the promise of democracy — the aggregation of individual conscience would civilize the world.

We say, to participate meaningfully in our world, we need to know what is going on — we need to be informed of fact. And we say that the facts are so shocking, that once informed, we cannot in good conscience not participate!

We say, the greatest weapons in this battle for sanity are the facts of the world, and the ability to do something about them.

We say, the facts cannot be kept from us — and when they need to be told, they must be told.

We say, there are some facts of such importance that they cannot in good conscience be kept secret.

We say, the facts need to be turned on corrupt governments, corporations, institutions, organizations or individuals, wherever they exist.

We say, the facts need to be turned on repression and tyranny, wherever they exist.

We say, important facts need to be known, and when the powerful try to keep them secret, they are wrong.

We say, those who release important information to the public, that was wrongly kept secret, deserve our gratitude and appreciation for their courage.

We say, important information needs to be set free and it needs to be kept free!

We say, we want to understand the facts, however unpleasant they may be.

We say, we want to understand the truth, and explain it to the world.

We say, we want the truth. And we can handle the truth!

We say, the light of fact and truth, and the arousal of citizens to their duty, will be an unstoppable force for civilization in the world.

•         •         •

It’s time.

It’s time for our world to move on from its atrocious historical legacy.

It’s time for our world to move into the 21st century.

It’s time, for our world is too much. Human beings need to laugh, not weep! How can we stand a world so full of sorrow that we cannot yet laugh?

It’s time for us to be able to laugh!

It’s time to participate in issues that affect us — and to have the knowledge and facts available to do so.

It’s time to be free of any institution which is corrupt, oppressive, authoritarian or secretive.

It’s time for all facts of public importance to be known.

It’s time for citizens to understand the facts and explain them to other citizens, participating in a truly democratic process.

It’s time, in the age of information, for a place where such facts can be safely released, analyzed and explained.

It’s time, in the 21st century, for a process where citizens themselves take on the task of explaining the facts.

It’s time for us to unite together in creation.

It’s time to show that courage — real courage! — is contagious.

It’s time to say, let us be free!

But we do not ask for permission to be free — for that is the essence of freedom. “


WikiLeaks Defeats Illegal Visa Blockade

"Valitor (Visa Iceland) must pay WikiLeaks $204,900 per month or $2,494,604 per year in fines if it continues to blockade WL."


Milestone Supreme Court Decision for WikiLeaks Case in Iceland

Today’s decision marked the most important victory to date against the unlawful and arbitrary economic blockade erected by US companies against WikiLeaks. Iceland’s Supreme Court upheld the decision that Valitor (formerly VISA Iceland and current Visa subcontractor) had unlawfully terminated its contract with WikiLeaks donations processor DataCell. This strong judgement is an important milestone for WikiLeaks’ legal battle to end the economic blockade that has besieged the organisation since early December 2010. Despite the effects of the blockade having crippled WikiLeaks resources, the organisation is fighting the blockade on many fronts. It is a battle that concerns free speech and the future of the free press; it concerns fundamental civil rights; and it is a struggle for the rights of individuals to vote with their wallet and donate to the cause they believe in.

If the gateway to WikiLeaks donations is not re-opened within 15 days Visa’s Valitor will be fined 800,000 ISK ($6,830) per day.

WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, said:

“This is a victory for free speech. This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers”

“We thank the Icelandic people for showing that they will not be bullied by powerful Washington backed financial services companies like Visa. And we send out a warning to the other companies involved in this blockade: you’re next.”

“We hope that the that the European Commission also acknowledges that the economic blockade against WikiLeaks is an unlawful and arbitrary censorship mechanism that threatens freedom of the press across Europe. If it fails to do so, the Commission must be regarded as failing to live up to the founding European principles of economic and political freedom.”

Today’s verdict strengthens other fronts in this battle. There is an active legal action in Denmark against a Danish sub-contractor for VISA, equivalent to Valitor. The decision will also buttress the pre-litigation work already under way in various jurisdictions against the international card companies and financial services companies - VISA and MasterCard, Western Union, PayPal and Bank of America, and other payment facilitators that teamed with these giants to form a concerted, and equally unlawful economic blockade against the organisation.

In November the European Parliament passed a resolution which included a clause drafted specifically in relation to the economic blockade against Wikileaks. The resolution called on the European Commission to draft regulations that will prevent online payment facilitators from arbitrarily denying services to companies or organisations, such as WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has also launched a formal complaint to the European Commission on the basis that VISA and MasterCard, which together take up 95% of the European market, have unlawfully abused their dominant market position. The European Commission is still evaluating whether it will open a formal investigation but documents already submitted by the companies reveal that the credit card companies were in talks with powerful figures in the US Congress and Senate (Senator Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King).

Although it is still not possible to donate directly to WikiLeaks via credit card, freedom of press campaigners including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Elsberg, the actor John Cusack, and the Founder of the California-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) John Perry Barlow, have set up the Freedom of the Press Foundation to collect money for WikiLeaks. It allows donors to make anonymous, tax-deductable donations.

This and similar mechanisms for Europeans are available on



Freedom of the Press Foundation:

Julian Assange asylum (one year, June 19, 2013)

Bradley Manning (trial June 2)


[ Quoted from Wikileaks: ;

Official Icelandic Supreme Court link: ]


"The Icelandic Supreme Court is the highest court in Iceland. There is no avenue of appeal for Valitor/Visa."

Statement by Julian Assange after Six Months in Ecuadorian Embassy

Thursday December 20th, 19:00 GMT

Six months ago – 185 days ago - I entered this building.

It has become my home, my office and my refuge.

Thanks to the principled stance of the Ecuadorian government and the support of its people I am safe in this Embassy and safe to speak from this Embassy.

And every single day outside, people like you have watched over this embassy – rain hail and shine.

Every single day. I came here in summer. It’s winter now.

I have been sustained by this solidarity and I’m grateful for the efforts of people all around the world supporting the work of Wikileaks, supporting freedom of speech and freedom of the press, essential elements in any democracy.

While my freedom is limited, I am still able to communicate this Christmas, unlike the 232 journalists who are in jail tonight.

unlike Godfried Svartholm in Sweden tonight

unlike Jeremy Hammond in New York tonight

unlike Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain tonight

unlike Bradley Manning who turned 25 this week, a young man who has maintained his dignity after spending more than 10% of this life in jail, some of that time in a cage, naked and without his glasses.

and unlike the so many others whose plights are linked to my own.

I salute these brave men and women. And I salute those journalists and publications that have covered what has and continues to happen to these people, and to journalists and publications that continue publishing the truth in the face of persecution, prosecution and threat – who take journalism and publishing seriously.

Because it is from the revelation of the truth that all else follows.

Our buildings can only be as tall as their bricks are strong.

And our civilization is only as strong as its ideas are true.

When our buildings are erected by the corrupt. When their cement is cut with dirt. When pristine steel is replaced by scrap—our buildings are not safe to live in.

And when our media is corrupt. When our academics are timid. When our history is filled with half truths and lies. Our civilization will never be just. It will never reach the sky.

Our societies are intellectual shanty towns. Our beliefs about the world and each other have been created by same system that has lied us into repeated wars that have killed millions.

You can’t build a sky scraper out of plasticine. And you can’t build a just civilization out of ignorance and lies.

We have to educate each other. We have to celebrate those who reveal the truth and denounce those who poison our ability to comprehend the world we live in.

The quality of our discourse is the limit of our civilization.

This generation has come to its feet and is revolutionizing the way we see the world.

For the first time in history the people affected by history are its creators.

As for other journalists and publications – your work speaks for itself, and so do your war crimes.

I salute those who recognize that freedom of the press and the publics right to know– recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1st Amendment in the US - is in danger and needs protection like never before.

Wikileaks is under a continuing criminal investigation and this fact has been recognized by Ecuador and the governments of Latin America as one that materially endangers my life and work.

Asylum is not granted on a whim but on facts.

The US investigation is referred to in testimony under oath in US courts, is admitted by Department of Justice and by the District Attorney of Virginia as a fact. It’s subpoenas are being litigated in the courts. The Pentagon reissued its threats against me in September and claimed the very existence of Wikileaks is an ongoing crime.

My work will not be cowed. But while this immoral investigation continues, and while the Australian government will not defend the journalism and publishing of Wikileaks, I must remain here.

However, the door is open - and the door has always been open - for anyone who wishes to speak to me. Like you I have not been charged with a crime. If ever you see spin that suggests otherwise, note this corruption of journalism. Then goto for the full facts. Tell the world the truth.

Despite the limitations, despite the extra judicial banking blockade, which circles WikiLeaks like the Cuban embargo, despite an unprecedented criminal investigation and campaign to damage and destroy Wikileaks, 2012 has been a huge year.

We have released nearly a million documents. made significant releases – relating to events unfolding in Syria.

We have exposed the mass surveillance state and hundreds of thousands of documents from private intelligence companies.

We have released information about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo bay and elsewhere.

We’ve won against the blockade in the courts and the European Parliament.

And after a two year fight contributions to WikiLeaks have gone from being tax deductible no where to being tax deductible across the entirety of the European Union and the United States.

And last week information revealed by Wikileaks was vital in determining what really happened to El Masri, an innocent European kidnapped and tortured by the CIA.

Next year will be equally busy. Wikileaks already has well over a million documents to release. Documents that affect every country in the world. Every country in this world.

And in Australia an unelected Senator will be replaced by one that is elected.

In 2013 we continue to stand up to bullies. The Ecuadorian government and the governments of Latin America have shown how cooperating through shared values can embolden governments to stand up to bullies and support self determination. Their governments threaten no one: attack no one: send drones at no one. But together they stand strong and independent.

The tired calls by Washington power brokers for economic sanctions against Ecuador, simply for defending my rights, are misguided and wrong. President Correa rightly said, “Ecuador’s principles are not for sale.”. We must unite to defend the courageous people of Ecuador against interference in its economy and interference in its elections next year.

The power of people speaking up and resisting together terrifies corrupt undemocratic power. So much so that ordinary people in the West are now the enemy of governments, an enemy to be watched, controlled and impoverished.

True democracy is not the White house. It is not Canberra. True democracy is the resistance of people armed with the truth, against lies, from Tahrir to London. Every day, ordinary people teach us that democracy is free speech and dissent.

For once we, the people, stop speaking out, and stop dissenting, once we are distracted or pacified, once we turn away from each other, we are no longer free. For true democracy is the sum of our resistance.

If you don’t speak up, if you give up what is uniquely yours as a human being, you surrender your consciousness; your independence, even your sense of what is right and wrong. In other words, perhaps without knowing it, you become passive and controlled, unable to defend yourself and those you love.

People often ask, “What can I do?” the answer is not so difficult.

Learn how the world works. Challenge the statements, actions and intentions of those who seek to control us behind the facades of democracy and monarchy.

Unite in common purpose and common principle to design, build, document, finance and defend.

Learn, challenge, act.


OR Books: A watchman's shout in the night


This note came into OR Books from Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. It is intended for publishers considering licensing language rights for his new book, CYPHERPUNKS, but we think it’s a deeply moving (yes, even we NYC cynics find ourselves moved) summary of why the book’s important—and why some other things are important as well (activism, changing stuff). Here it is verbatim:

Message from Julian Assange for Frankfurt Book Fair
CYPHERPUNKS is not a political manifesto. There isn’t time for that. It is instead an attempt to raise the alarm.
Few have noticed but we now live in the once-imagined futures of our darkest science fiction. Technology we do not understand surrounds us. Without understanding it we are vulnerable in ways we cannot predict.
The scale of the vulnerability eclipses it. Most people are more scared of neighbours spying through bedroom windows than government agencies secretly archiving every email, text message or phonecall of a whole population, forever. But the former is embarrassing. The latter threatens the fabric of liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Immense changes are coming. They are already taking place, but the eyes of the world are elsewhere. If we are to keep pace with these changes and win back our diminishing liberties, we must do it en masse and soon. And so we must raise an alarm. CYPHERPUNKS is a watchman’s shout in the night.
Besides my original writing, CYPHERPUNKS includes an important conversation with three friends and fellow watchmen, on the principle that perhaps in unison our voices can wake up the town.
We are not defenseless but our defenses have until recently been the preserve of cryptographers and enthusiasts - defenders of the free internet. To win this battle we must do our bit to propagate what we know before it is too late. For that reason I am eager for this work to be read around the world and am eager to help prospective publishers promote it in their regions.             - Julian Assange, October 2012

Julian Assange at the United Nations

Transcript of Julian Assange’s Address to the UN on Human Rights – given on Wednesday 26th September – Proofed from live speech

Watch the speech

Foreign Minister Patino, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained for 659 days without charge, I am free in the most basic and important sense. I am free to speak my mind.

This freedom exists because the nation of Ecuador has granted me political asylum and other nations have rallied to support its decision.

And it is because of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that WikiLeaks is able to “receive and impart information… through any media, and any medium and regardless of frontiers”. And it is because of Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the right to seek asylum from persecution, and the 1951 Refugee Convention and other conventions produced by the United Nations that I am able to be protected along with others from political persecution.

It is thanks to the United Nations that I am able to exercise my inalienable right to seek protection from the arbitrary and excessive actions taken by governments against me and the staff and supporters of my organisation. It is because of the absolute prohibition on torture enshrined in customary international law and the UN Convention Against Torture that we stand firmly to denounce torture and war crimes, as an organisation, regardless of who the perpetrators are.

I would like to thank the courtesy afforded to me by the Government of Ecuador in providing me with the space here today speak once again at the UN, in circumstances very different to my intervention in the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.

Almost two years ago today, I spoke there about our work uncovering the torture and killing of over 100,000 Iraqi citizens.

But today I want to tell you an American story.

I want to tell you the story of a young American soldier in Iraq.

The soldier was born in Cresent Oaklahoma to a Welsh mother and US Navy father. His parents fell in love. His father was stationed at a US military base in Wales.

The soldier showed early promise as a boy, winning top prize at science fairs 3 years in a row.

He believed in the truth, and like all of us, hated hypocrisy.

He believed in liberty and the right for all of us to pursue happiness. He believed in the values that founded an independent United States. He believed in Madison, he believed in Jefferson and he believed in Paine. Like many teenagers, he was unsure what to do with his life, but he knew he wanted to defend his country and he knew he wanted to learn about the world. He entered the US military and, like his father, trained as an intelligence analyst.

In late 2009, aged 21, he was deployed to Iraq.

There, it is alleged, he saw a US military that often did not follow the rule of law, and in fact, engaged in murder and supported political corruption.

It is alleged, it was there, in Baghdad, in 2010 that he gave to WikiLeaks, and to the world, details that exposed the torture of Iraqis, the murder of journalists and the detailed records of over 120,000 civilian killings in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He is also alleged to have given WikiLeaks 251,000 US diplomatic cables, which then went on to help trigger the Arab Spring. This young soldier’s name is Bradley Manning.

Allegedly betrayed by an informer, he was then imprisoned in Baghdad, imprisoned in Kuwait, and imprisoned in Virginia, where he was kept for 9 months in isolation and subject to severe abuse. The UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, Juan Mendez, investigated and formally found against the United States.

Hillary Clinton’s spokesman resigned. Bradley Manning, science fair all-star, soldier and patriot was degraded, abused and psychologically tortured by his own government. He was charged with a death penalty offence. These things happened to him, as the US government tried to break him, to force him to testify against WikiLeaks and me.

As of today Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for 856 days.

The legal maximum in the US military is 120 days.

The US administration is trying to erect a national regime of secrecy. A national regime of obfuscation.

A regime where any government employee revealing sensitive information to a media organization can be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or for espionage and journalists from a media organization with them.

We should not underestimate the scale of the investigation which has happened into WikiLeaks. I only wish I could say that Bradley Manning was the only victim of the situation. But the assault on WikiLeaks in relation to that matter and others has produced an investigation that Australian diplomats say is without precedent in its scale and nature. That the US government called a “whole of government investigation.” Those government agencies identified so far as a matter of public record having been involved in this investigation include: the Department of Defense, Centcom, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the US Army Criminal Investigation Division, the United States Forces in Iraq, the First Army Division, The US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, the CCIU, the Second Army Cyber-Command. And within those three separate intelligence investigations, the Department of Justice, most significantly, and its US Grand Jury in Alexandria Virginia, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which now has, according to court testimony early this year produced a file of 42,135 pages into WikiLeaks, of which less than 8000 concern Bradley Manning. The Department of State, the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Services. In addition we have been investigated by the Office of the Director General of National Intelligence, the ODNI, the Director of National Counterintelligence Executive, the Central Intelligence Agency, the House Oversight Committee, the National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB – the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

The Department of Justice spokesperson Dean Boyd confirmed in July 2012 that the Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks is ongoing.

For all Barack Obama’s fine words yesterday, and there were many of them, fine words, it is his administration that boasts on his campaign website of criminalizing more speech that all previous US presidents combined.

I am reminded of the phrase: “the audacity of hope.”

Who can say that the President of the United States is not audacious?

Was it not audacity for the United States government to take credit for the last two years’ avalanche of progress?

Was it not audacious to say, on Tuesday, that the “United States supported the forces of change” in the Arab Spring?

Tunisian history did not begin in December 2010.

And Mohammed Bouazizi did not set himself on fire so that Barack Obama could be reelected.

His death was an emblem of the despair he had to endure under the Ben Ali regime.

The world knew, after reading WikiLeaks publications, that the Ben Ali regime and its government had for long years enjoyed the indifference, if not the support, of the United States – in full knowledge of its excesses and its crimes.

So it must come as a surprise to Tunisians that the United States supported the forces of change in their country.

It must come as a surprise to the Egyptian teenagers who washed American teargas out of their eyes that the US administration supported change in Egypt.

It must come as a surprise to those who heard Hillary Clinton insist that Mubarak’s regime was “stable,” and when it was clear to everyone that it was not, that its hated intelligence chief, Sueilman, who we proved the US knew was a torturer, should take the realm.

It must come as a surprise to all those Egyptians who heard Vice President Joseph Biden declare that Hosni Mubarak was a democrat and that Julian Assange was a high tech terrorist.

It is disrespectful to the dead and incarcerated of the Bahrain uprising to claim that the United States “supported the forces of change.”

This is indeed audacity.

Who can say that it is not audacious that the President – concerned to appear leaderly – looks back on this sea change – the people’s change – and calls it his own?

But we can take heart here too, because it means that the White House has seen that this progress is inevitable.

In this “season of progress” the president has seen which way the wind is blowing.

And he must now pretend that it is his adminstration that made it blow.

Very well. This is better than the alternative – to drift into irrelevance as the world moves on.

We must be clear here.

The United States is not the enemy.

Its government is not uniform. In some cases good people in the United States supported the forces of change. And perhaps Barack Obama personally was one of them.

But in others, and en masse, early on, it actively opposed them.

This is a matter of historical record.

And it is not fair and it is not appropriate for the President to distort that record for political gain, or for the sake of uttering fine words.

Credit should be given where it is due, but it should be withheld where it is not.

And as for the fine words.

They are fine words.

And we commend and agree with these fine words.

We agree when President Obama said yesterday that people can resolve their differences peacefully.

We agree that diplomacy can take the place of war.

And we agree that this is an interdependent world, that all of us have a stake in.

We agree that freedom and self-determination are not merely American or Western values, but universal values.

And we agree with the President when he says that we must speak honestly if we are serious about these ideals.

But fine words languish without commensurate actions.

President Obama spoke out strongly in favour of the freedom of expression.

“Those in power,” he said, “have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent.”

There are times for words and there are times for action. The time for words has run out.

It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks, to cease its persecution of our people, and to cease its persecution of our alleged sources.

It is time for President Obama do the right thing, and join the forces of change, not in fine words but in fine deeds.

Declaration by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the asylum application of Julian Assange

On June 19, 2012, the Australian national citizen Julian Assange, appeared at the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London, to request diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorian State to benefit from the existing rules on Diplomatic Asylum. The applicant has based its request on the fear that the eventual results might suffer political persecution in a third country, it could use his extradition to the Kingdom of Sweden to get to turn the subsequent extradition to that country.

The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedure and attach the utmost seriousness in this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects involved in it, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear they feel about a situation that this person perceives as a threat to life, personal safety and freedom.

It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over allegations that it says, have been made by alleged “espionage and treason”, which exposes the citizen who inspires fear the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by the British, Swedish or Australian, for he is a country, said Mr. Assange, chasing him because of the declassification of information embarrassing to the U.S. Government. Is also the applicant, that “a victim of persecution in various countries, which derives not only from their ideas and actions, but of their work to publish information which compromises the powerful, to publish the truth and, Therefore, exposing corruption and severe human rights abuses of citizens around the world. “

Therefore, for the applicant, the allocation of political offenses is the foundation of his asylum claim, because in his opinion, is faced with a situation involving an imminent danger for him who can not resist. In order to explain the fear he instills a possible political persecution, and that this possibility ends up becoming a situation of prejudice and violation of his rights, integrity and risk to personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador considered the following:

  1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally for his struggle for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;

  2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global audience was privileged documentary information generated by various sources, and affected employees, countries and organizations;

  3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger their safety, integrity, and even his life;

  4. That, despite diplomatic efforts by Ecuador, countries which have required adequate safeguards to protect the safety and life of Mr. Assange, have refused to facilitate them;

  5. That is certain Ecuadorian authorities that it is possible the extradition of Mr. Assange to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;

  6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, could be tried by special courts or military, and it is unlikely that is applied to cruel and degrading , and was sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would not respect their human rights;

  7. 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;

  8. Ecuador is convinced that they have undermined the procedural rights of Mr. Assange during the investigation;

  9. Ecuador has found that Mr. Assange is without protection and assistance to be received from the State which is a citizen;

  10. That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect the conventions and treaties, and give priority to domestic law school hierarchy, in violation of rules express universal application and,

  11. That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), would start a chain of events that would prevent the further protective measures taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.

Thus, the Government of Ecuador considers that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, while this may be a victim of political persecution, as a result of determined action in favor of freedom of expression and freedom of press and repudiation of his position to abuse that power tends to run in certain countries, issues that Mr. Assange suggest that, at any time, may be a situation likely to endanger life, safety or integrity staff. This fear has been ordered to exercise their human right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK.

Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador clearly defines the right of asylum. Under this provision, in Ecuador are fully recognized the rights of asylum and refugee status in accordance with the law and international human rights instruments. According to this constitutional provision:

“People who are in a situation of asylum and refugee shall enjoy special protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement, as well as humanitarian assistance and emergency legal. “

Also, the right to asylum is enshrined in Article 4.7 of the Foreign Service Act of 2006, which determines the ability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to hear cases of diplomatic asylum, according to the laws, treaties, law and international practice.

It should be stressed that our country has been highlighted in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing the armed conflict in their country. The High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and highlighted the significant fact that the country has not been confined to camps for these people, but have been integrated into society, full enjoyment of their human rights and guarantees.

Ecuador is located the right of asylum in the universal catalog of human rights and believes therefore that the effective implementation of this right requires international cooperation that our countries can be provided, without which the statement would be fruitless, and the institution would be totally ineffective. For these reasons, and recalling the obligation of all States have taken to help protect and promote human rights, as provided by the United Nations Charter, invited the British Government to provide its quota to achieve this purpose.

For this purpose, Ecuador has noted, during the analysis of legal institutions related to asylum, the conformation of this right fundamental principles involved general international law, the same as for its importance and scope have universal value, since kept consistent with the general interest of the entire international community, and have full recognition by all states. These principles, which are set forth in international instruments are as follows:

a) The Asylum, in all its forms is a fundamental human right creating obligations erga omnes, ie “for all” states.

b) The diplomatic asylum, the refuge (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, are human rights comparable, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: non-refoulement and non-discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status or any other similar criteria.

c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (ie, more favorable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.

d) The protection occurs when the State granting asylum, shelter or required, or the protecting power, consider that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or is charged with political offenses.

e) The State granting asylum qualify the causes of asylum and extradition case, weigh the evidence.

f) No matter which of its forms or forms are present, the asylum is always the same cause and the same legal order, ie, political persecution, which causes it permissible, and safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person, who is the lawful purpose.

g) The right of asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, ie the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, which no derogation is permitted, being null all treaties and provisions of international law which they oppose.

h) In cases not covered by existing law, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and empire of the principles of international law derived from established custom, principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.

i) The lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States can not legitimately be invoked to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.

j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum, no extradition, no delivery, no expulsion and transfer are not converging, to the extent necessary to enhance the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense, are complementary international law of human rights, the right of asylum and refugee law and humanitarian law.

k) The rights of protection of the human person are based on ethical principles and values universally accepted and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidarity, welfare, peaceful and humanitarian.

l) All States have a duty to promote the progressive development of international human rights through effective national and international action.

Ecuador considers that the law governing the asylum case of Mr. Julian Assange comprises the entire set of principles, standards, mechanisms and procedures provided for in international human rights instruments (whether regional or universal), which include among their provisions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons, the conventions governing the right of asylum and refugee law, and recognize the right not to be delivered, returned, or expelled when founded fear of persecution political conventions governing extradition law and recognize the right not to be extradited when this measure cover political persecution, and conventions governing humanitarian law, and recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of persecution policy. All these forms of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person from a possible political persecution, or a possible allocation of political crimes and / or crimes related to the latter, which in the opinion of Ecuador, not only endanger Mr. Assange, but also pose a serious injustice committed against him.

It is undeniable that the States, to have assumed so numerous and substantive international instruments, many of them legally-binding obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons, have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, based on a general practice accepted as law, which he attributes to such obligations as mandatory, erga omnes, being linked to the respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms, are part of jus cogens. Some of these instruments are mentioned below:

a) United Nations Charter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: the obligation of all members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;

b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);

c) Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27);

d) Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: in no case be transferred to the protected person to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45);

e) Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York, 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1);

f) Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of persecution (Article 4);

g) Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article 2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3) and confirmation of the extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);

h) European Convention on Extradition of 1957, prohibits extradition if the requested Party considers that the offense charged is a political (Article 3.1);

i) 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967 provides for the granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1);

j) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, provides that the rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon its conclusion conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53), and if a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens.

k) American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7);

l) European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, the requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5);

m) Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981, the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article 4.3), when, under the classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article 6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when the appropriate”.

n) African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981, pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);

o) Cartagena Declaration of 1984, recognizes the right to shelter, unless rejected at the border and not be returned.

p) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not represented by the Member State of nationality, the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46).

The Government of Ecuador considers important to note that the rules and principles recognized in international instruments mentioned and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universalizing rules guided by principles intangible, which results in a greater respect, guarantee and protection of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This would compromise international law, which should rather be strengthened, so that respect for fundamental rights is consolidated in terms of integration and ecumenical character.

Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

In the course of these conversations, our country has called on the UK get more stringent safeguards for Assange front, unobstructed, open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include, once vented their legal responsibilities in Sweden does not extradite to a third country, ie the guarantee does not apply the figure of the specialty. Unfortunately, despite the repeated exchanges of texts, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach political compromises, merely repeat the content of legal texts.

Assange’s lawyers asked the Swedish justice take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador has officially moved to the Swedish authorities willing to provide this interview with the intention not to interfere or impede the legal process is followed in Sweden. This measure is perfect and legally possible. Sweden did not accept.

On the other hand, Ecuador sounded the possibility that the Swedish government to establish safeguards that are not in sequence Assange extradited to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.

Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially unveil its position on the case Assange. Queries related to:

  1. If there is an ongoing legal process or intend to carry out such process against Julian Assange and / or the founders of the organization Wikileaks;
  2. Should the above be true, what kind of legislation, how and under what conditions would be subject to maximum penalties such persons;
  3. If there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

The U.S. response has been that it can not provide information about the Assange case, saying it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.

With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to citizens Assange, based on the application submitted to the President of the Republic, by written communication, dated London, June 19, 2012, and supplemented by letter dated at London on June 25, 2012, for which the Government of Ecuador, after a fair and objective assessment of the situation described by Mr. Assange, according to their own words and arguments, endorsed the fears of the appellant, and assumes that there are indications that it may be presumed that there may be political persecution, or could occur such persecution if measures are not taken timely and necessary to avoid it.

The Government of Ecuador is certain that the British Government know how to value justice and righteousness of the Ecuadorian position, and consistent with these arguments, confident that the UK will offer as soon as possible or safe passage guarantees necessary and relevant to the refugee situation, so that their governments to honor their acts of loyalty they owe to the law and international institutions that both nations have helped shape along their common history.

It also hopes to maintain unchanged the excellent ties of friendship and mutual respect which bind to Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their peoples, as they are engaged in promoting and defending the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about the democracy, peace, Good Living, which are only possible if you respect the fundamental rights of all.


Google Translated from