![]() States have granted diplomatic asylum to individuals in a range of circumstances. This Insight concentrates on the legal issues raised by the grant of asylum and Assangeâs continued residence in the Ecuadorian Embassy. These events have excited much commentary amongst journalists and international lawyers alike. was âdetermined to carry out legal obligation to see Julian Assange extradited to Sweden,â resulting in a diplomatic stand-off. Foreign Secretary William Hague stated that the U.K. Nearly two months after Assange, an Australian national, entered the embassy, the Ecuadorian government announced that it would grant him asylum, citing concerns that if he was extradited to the United States, he could face trial by a military court, cruel and degrading treatment, and life imprisonment or capital punishment. While Assangeâs immediate concern was to prevent extradition to Sweden, it is reported that his underlying fear is extradition from Sweden to the United States on charges relating to the activities of WikiLeaks. Swedish Prosecution Authority, wherein the majority upheld the European Arrest Warrant issued pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 (U.K.), seeking the arrest and surrender of Assange. ![]() ![]() ![]() The decision to seek asylum followed a protracted court battle in the U.K., ending with the decision of the U.K. from extraditing him to Sweden, where he is wanted by the Prosecution Authority for questioning in relation to allegations of sexual molestation and rape. Assangeâs aim in seeking asylum was to prevent the U.K. On June 19, 2012, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, walked into Ecuadorâs embassy in London and requested diplomatic asylum from the Ecuadorian government. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |