There are two sides to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Some believe the sides are interconnected based on politics, and some believe they represent the light and dark side of this complex individual. Julian Assange is known primarily to be an international whistleblower, making sure governments, military personnel, and diplomats are honest by publishing their correspondence and plans. Nevertheless, Mr. Assange is currently involved in a sex scandal, supposedly having raped and sexually molested two Swedish women working for the WikiLeaks team in Sweden. Assange and his followers claim that the accusations are a covert tactic to keep him out of his realm of employment, an intricate stratagem to keep government secrets secret. Whatever the reality may be, it seems Julian Assange is hanging on to the last thread of his extradition case.

Although Mr. Assange and his team of lawyers are coming to the end of their avenues of appeal, an interesting development transpired on May 30th. Julian Assange’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was dismissed, with a majority of five to two justices ruling against him. However, Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose, believed the proceedings were unfair and challenged the judgment made. Her claim was that the majority of justices made their ruling based upon an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The particular article invoked was Article 31.3 which states that ‘treaties can be interpreted bearing in mind the subsequent practice of their application.’ Assange’s defense team asserts that they did not have adequate time to consider the judgment because it was not disseminated in advance of the verdict (primarily because of security concerns). Consequently, they did not have the ability to sufficiently represent the interests of their client.

The timing of the release of judgment is one of the primary concerns of the defense team, but Mr. Assange’s lawyers also bring up the point that the actions of the justices may not have been legal. That is to say, the Supreme Court acted in a different way than what had been approved by parliament. The European arrest warrant system states that a ‘judiciary authority’ was permitted to begin the extradition process. This action was taken by the Swedish prosecution, leading parliament and the Supreme Court to disagree over whether or not this was a legal process. According to the British federal government, a ‘judicial authority’ is a court or a judge. However, the Supreme Court made its judgment based on the continental European standards, outlined in the Vienna Convention, which allow for prosecutors to ask for an extradition. This difference in interpretations was never brought up in court, meaning the defense could not prepare for it.

After Ms. Rose brought up this point in the courtroom on Wednesday, the court agreed that the defense could have 14 days to file a formal complaint. Hence, a unique event has taken place in the legal world: a Supreme Court has admitted that it could have potentially committed an illegal act in its appeal dismissal!

If the ruling does continue along the same path and Julian Assange is ultimately extradited, the defense team has one further measure it can take on and that is to appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

For a more in depth look at this legal case, the following sources can be consulted:

Biography of Julian Assange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

The Supreme Court of the UK: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/

European Court of Human Rights: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/homepage_en