We celebrate the ruling of the British judge Vanessa Baraitser who denies the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States. Nevertheless, the series of abuses, and humiliations to which he has been subjected for almost a decade as a result of his exercise of freedom of expression and information is in fact almost equivalent to a harsh sentence of deprivation of liberty and merits essential comments.
First of all, Assange has acted in exercise of the right to freedom of expression and dissemination of opinion, which is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms:
Article 19. Every individual has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; This right includes the right not to be disturbed because of their opinions, to investigate and receive information and opinions, and to disseminate them, without limitation of borders, by any means of expression.
Secondly, Assange has merely disseminated information supplied by the American Chelsea Manning, who has already been pardoned by the authorities of his country, for which it makes no sense, justice and logic to continue a cruel and punitive process against the mere disseminator of information, who on the other hand has Australian nationality, has acted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and is not bound by the laws of that country, while the government of the latter has renounced to continue exercising the same punitive action against one of its citizens.
Third, although the ruling of the British judge Vanessa Baraitser evidently pursues a humanitarian purpose, it is evident that it is not based on the recognized right of all human beings to express opinions and disseminate information, but on the pretext that the undeniable harshness of the The American prison system could cause a mental imbalance in the prisoner that could lead to suicide. That is to say, in the event that it could be presumed that the psychological stability of Assange or of any other defendant accused of the same violation would allow him to resist the mistreatment, he could be extradited despite having done nothing more than exercising the Human Rights inherent in freedom of opinion and dissemination of information.
Fourthly, it is a universally accepted principle of law that alleged political crimes do not give rise to extradition, since what is considered a political crime in a specific country is not considered outside its territorial jurisdiction, and much less when the accused is not national of the country requesting the extradition, nor has he committed the acts discussed in its territory. The fact that the judgment of the British judge Vanessa Baraitser does not invoke such elements of judgment, allows us to suppose that it is admitted in fact that the United States possesses extraterritorial powers and competences to make kidnap any citizen, of any nationality, anywhere on earth, for alleged crimes committed outside the territory of said country. This disastrous principle would presuppose the extinction of the sovereignty of all the States of the planet, as well as that of the Human Rights of all its citizens.
Fifth, the calamitous and inhumane process followed against Assange is based on the flagrant violation of the Right to Asylum, enshrined in Article 14 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 14. 1. In the event of persecution, everyone has the right to seek asylum, and to enjoy it, in any country.
2. This right may not be invoked against a legal action really originated by common crimes or by acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
In this regard, it is obvious that Julian Assange simply exercised the right to seek asylum and to enjoy it; that he did not invoke it against an action originated in common crimes, but in alleged political crimes of dissemination of information against a country to whose jurisdiction he is not subject; and that the investigation and dissemination of information is not contrary to the principles of the United Nations, but rather an activity protected by them in the aforementioned Article 19 of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the contrary, the decision of the Ecuadorian government to revoke the right of asylum previously granted violates the aforementioned principle and all the rules of decency and simple humanity.
For all the above, although we grant that the ruling of the British judge Vanessa Baraitser frees Julián Assange from the risks of a rigged trial and attacks against him in the United States, it does not recognize the right of the rest of humanity to freedom of opinion and expression; not to be bothered because of their opinions, to investigate and receive information and opinions, and to disseminate them, without limitation of borders, by any means of expression, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 19 of the aforementioned Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This aspect of the sentence is extremely serious at a time when ownership of the media tends to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands; and in that many States and private companies multiply and intensify their systems of espionage on private persons, at the same time that they withdraw from them both the right and the possibilities to investigate and disseminate information on such practices and on the Human Rights violations committed both by public and private entities. Let's add that Judge Baraitser refuses to grant Assange's release from prison, making him an eternal prisoner of unspoken charges.
Our solidarity with Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julián Assange and all those accused or persecuted for exercising the right to investigation and dissemination of information, which is everyone's right, and for exercising which, apparently, we are all subject to persecution. , the retaliation and brutal treatment by all enemies of mankind.