Assange Case Study

1014 Words 5 Pages
I. Facts

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and publisher. He is the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, a public-interest publication all over the world. On November 2010, Assange was wanted in Sweden for questioning on the charges of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion . Subsequently, a Swedish public prosecutor took from Stockholm District Court a domestic detention order against Mr Assange. In compliance with the criminal law of Sweden, the detention order is admissible for the prosecutor to accelerate to issue a European Arrest Warrant . In order to evade justice in Sweden, Assange moved in UK and started long-continued legal process in local courts. By the way, Westminster Magistrates Court upheld and confirmed the
…show more content…
Consideration of legal aspects

International public law means the set of legal rules governing international relations between public bodies such as States and international organizations. International law also regulates relations between States and non-State individuals. In the case of individuals, international law gives each individual certain rights and obligations as well . In this particular case, we can observe situation where many aspects of this legal area are involved (e.g. extradition, diplomatic asylum, international criminal justice).

1. Decision of Supreme Court of UK

The most important question in this case is the legal aspect concerning European Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant such as correlation of term “judicial authority” and public prosecution in Sweden in relation to the principles of independence and impartiality. The majority relied upon the common practice member states to register public prosecutors as competent authorities EAWs under Art. 6 (3) of the Framework decision.

2. Rights of
…show more content…
Extradition is the only legal way for a country to surrender its own citizens to another country for the latter to put them on trial or execute their sentence.5 Because of the rule of non-inquiry (although its application by courts may vary greatly from country to country) and the general assumption that the extradited person will receive a fair trial in the requesting state8, in most cases courts are somehow reluctant to deny extradition and tend to interpret extradition laws and treaties in favour of enforcement. 9 Another reason for that tendency is the fact that extradition is often seen by the judiciary as a largely diplomatic and political process.10 That does not mean that extradition happens unobstructed – there are inalienable human rights objections, but it means that a proper threshold must be set for the justification of extradition.11

The extradition is a very complicated legal procedure which includes local and international legal provisions. National laws vary greatly, as some (including sometimes at constitutional level) provide for strict observation of human rights in the process of extradition, while others completely disregard that

Related Documents