The arrest warrant against Julian Assange remains in place. That has Tuesday the court in Westminster to decide. The lawyers of the founder of Wikileaks, had the removal of that arrest asked because that’s ‘not in the public interest’.
Assange is staying for almost six years in the embassy of Ecuador in London, where they fled while he was out on bail, was released. Exactly that is given to him by the British court is still criticized. Sweden has the original complaint, that of sexual abuse, last year.
The tenacity with which Assange the subject of legal action, points out, according to some analysts that the issue is not so much legal, but political. The question is whether it is also in the ‘public interest’ is that in all those years, tens of millions of pounds are spent on the security of the embassy. The ruling means that Assange in the ambassadegebouw should continue. The man has since recently, moreover, except for a Australian also a Ecuadoraans passport.
That tenacity was also evident in the judgment that judge Emma Arbuthnot pronounced. They chose the karaktermoord by stating that Assange ‘thinks that he is above the law,’ and that he ‘just righteousness ‘ sake as for his own benefit.” Ironically, it didn Arbuthnot also to the fact that Assange is not in the courtroom was a show. The court found, moreover, in a refutation of the disproportionaliteit between complaint and prosecution, that Assange all these years “himself has locked up”.
In a reaction to the Wikileaks founder to know that judge Arbuthnot ‘only the interests of the British state defends’. With its judgment the court also against the UN decision of 2016. When asked legal experts of the United Nations that Assange in London ‘arbitrarily detained’, as he had for years been his refuge should look for in an embassy. Responsible for the legal actions of Sweden and the Uk, suggested an independent working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) when.