UNWGAD: Members are biased

jose-guevaraIf a judge is biased in an important case it is a miscarriage of justice. A scandal. If members of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) are biased it dispels “the myths that Assange chooses to remain in the Embassy or that he is a fugitive from justice.”  That is if one is to believe the contents in one of the UNWGAD members re-tweets.

Assange has lost in three separate courts in England. Judge Riddle, Sir John Thomas, Mr Justice Ouseley, Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson have been part of the proceedings and they have spent lots of time in order to reach a verdict. A verdict that is well argued and concise. That is a total of 10 judges. If one of those judges in direct connection to the published verdict had re-tweeted comments by the Swedish Prosecution Authority, articles by the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, the “Talk about it Campaign” or articles that defended their rulings we would all have been surprised and suspicious. Judges simply don’t behave this way. Judges are objective and unbiased.

For some unknown reason there are no demands on members of a UN Working Group, whose job it is to decide if an individual is arbitrary detained, to act objectively and unbiased. They can behave like activists and nobody cares. Take a look at what the vice chair José Guevara has been up to in connection to the publishing of the Opinion on Assange. Immediately he starts tweeting like a maniac. 15 tweets about the case. All in support of Assange. Not one in support of Sweden or the UK. Is he objective? You’ll be the judge.

Let Assange’s lawyers speak freely

tweet-comboOn the 5th of February, the same day as the Opinion was made public, our “objective and unbiased” friend re-tweets a link to an article by two of Assange’s lawyers, Melinda Taylor and Michael Ratner. To make sure the article is read, our “objective friend” makes sure that two different people are the originators.

Then let one Assange lawyer say it again

tweet-11On the 7th of February once more he links to one of Assange’s lawyers, Melinda Taylor. She wrote an araticle that our “objective friend” thinks everybody should read in order to understand how “objectively and without bias” UNWGAD reached this phenomenal decision and how important it is for Sweden and the UK to follow the recommendations. Melinda Taylor uses a strong voice when she declares:

The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

Impartial, international legal experts? Like Mr Guevara? Ridiculous!

Climax, 500+ prominent individuals have no clue

tweet-15It is obviously not enough for our “objective friend” Mr Guevara to link to Assange’s lawyers. He wants us to know that there are 500+ “objective, unbiased, noble …” Human Rights Organizations and prominent individuals that are behind the “objective and unbiased panel” demanding that Assange should be set free. I can only quote Secretary of State Philip Hammond: “Ridiculous!” I’m not sure that is enough.

Among those 500+ there is one individual that I will take a closer look at in my next post. Then I will point out all the errors UNWGAD made when they reviewed the Assange case. And I will of course take apart Assange’s submission.

It is important to remember that two people in the UNWGA panel are completely innocent. One is Vladimir Tochilovsky who dared to contradict the activists in the panel and Ms. Leigh Toomey who was lucky to be left out.

UN Panel’s remarkable Opinion (54/2015) in the Assange case

OHCHRIt was a while since I posted anything on this blog. When the UN panel (UNWGAD) on 5 February 2016 published its remarkable opinion in the Assange case I was astonished. How could they reach this conclusion and why is the Opinion filled with factual errors? I had to investigate.

I now know that the panel kept Assange’s allegations secret for Sweden. Most likely the panel kept Assange’s allegations secret to the UK as well. In an adversarial procedure as the one in UNWGAD it is essential that the parties are given access to all of the allegations otherwise one party is discriminated and a decision will be faulty. From Factsheet 26 :

The Group attaches great importance to the adversarial character of its procedure. Consequently, the communication is forwarded to the Government concerned through diplomatic channels with an invitation to communicate to the Working Group within 90 days its comments and observations on the allegations made, both as regards the facts and the applicable legislation and concerning the progress and outcome of any investigations that may have been ordered.

The UNWGAD panel have violated their own rules in this case. They kept Sweden (and most likely the UK) in the dark of Assange’s allegations in order for them to declare Assange to be arbitrary detained.

It is evident that the UNWGAD Opinion is nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. What is the value of a panel like the UNWGAD when they operate more like a court in the former Soviet Union during Stalin’s time.

I will expose the UNWGAD’s practice in a series of posts. I will also expose Assange’s submission to the UNWGAD for what it really is. A collection false arguments, willful errors in translation and misleading lines of reasoning. So there is more coming.