Assange was held as a political prisoner, says Council of Europe

Julian Assange watches the PACE plenary session from the public gallery, along with Stella Assange and Kristinn Hrafnsson 

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has approved Resolution 2571 (2024), which acknowledges the devastating consequences of Assange’s detention and conviction on media freedom, together with an amendment that recognises that he was a political prisoner of the US and UK.

On 2 October, one day after its Committee on Legal Affairs listened to Assange’s testimony, PACE discussed a draft resolution based on the report “The detention and conviction of Julian Assange and their chilling effects on human rights,” by Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, who conducted a fact-finding visit to the UK on 13-14 May 2024.

Ævarsdóttir visited Assange in Belmarsh prison and had a two-hour private talk with him. She was also able to meet other relevant figures in the case, for instance, the former chairperson of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Professor Mads Andenæs KC, who was in charge when the body stated that Assange’s was a case arbitrary detention.

No representative of the UK Home Office made themselves available to meet Ævarsdóttir, nor did she receive a reply from the Permanent Observer of the US to the Council of Europe regarding a possible meeting with a representative of the US Embassy in London.

The draft resolution states that “the Assembly considers that the misuse of the 1917 Espionage Act by the United States to prosecute Julian Assange has caused a dangerous chilling effect, dissuading publishers, journalists and whistle-blowers from reporting on governmental misconduct, thus severely undermining freedom of expression and opening room for further abuse by State authorities.”

Therefore, a call is made to the US to reform the 1917 Espionage Act and exclude its application to “publishers, journalists and whistle-blowers who disclose classified information with the intent to raise public awareness and inform on serious crimes, such as murder, torture, corruption, or illegal surveillance.” The application of such law must be conditional on the presence of a “malicious intent to harm the national security of the United States or to aid a foreign power.” The US is also asked to prevent the extradition of individuals whose offences are of a political nature.

The warning on the misuse of national security legislation also extends to the other members and observer states of the Council of Europe.

The Assembly asks them to “provide adequate protection, including asylum, to whistleblowers who expose unlawful activities of their governments and, for those reasons, are threatened with retaliation in their home States, provided their disclosures qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly, in particular, the defence of the public interest.”

States should avoid extraditing individuals when the offences are connected to journalistic activities and ensure that journalists are effectively protected from being forced to reveal their sources. In case they aren’t, a review of shield laws should be carried out.

During the discussion, German MP Andrej Hunko expressed concern for the fact that, as shown by the Assange case, “it is possible for a powerful state to use its own domestic legislation to hamper the work of journalists around the world, even those denouncing war crimes.”

An MP from Spain, Laura Castel, mentioned the problem of impunity for legal surveillance. “There is a direct line from the impunity for Spain spying on dissident voices, lawyers, journalists and politicians, destroying democracy, and the fact of not addressing the Wikileaks revelations of US spying on 125 German officials including Madame Merkel,” Castel said.

Cypriot MEP Constantinos Efstathiou tabled an amendment to emphasise that, in the case of Julian Assange, the criteria set out in Resolution 1900 (2012) on the definition of a political prisoner are met, thus justifying Assange’s designation as such. The amendment was approved.

Among the very few not in agreement with the use of the definition of ‘political prisoner’ was the British MP Lord Richard Keen. “It is not the actions of Julian Assange that are critical, of which I would at all criticise, it’s the definition of his detention within the United Kingdom. He was not detained as a political prisoner. That’s a simple matter of legal fact,” he stated.

An answer came from the Irish MP Paul Gavon, who pointed out that the UK has a long history of denying political prisoners. He stated: “We need to look at the subject matter that Julian exposed, which was political, the exposure of war crimes. We need to look at the vital public information that he put into the public domain, which was of a political nature. We need to look at the offence with which he was charged, a textbook political offence. Not to mention the fact that the CIA planned to kidnap and assassinate him. How on earth could this not be a political action?”

Resolution 2571 (2024)  was finally approved with 88 votes in favour, 13 against and 20 abstained.