Is the extradition process a matter between the US and the UK?

It appears there is a recurrent meme suggesting ‘extradition process will be a matter between the US and the UK’. This page is intended to reduce duplication and maintenance by holding the discussion in a single place

1. International law must prevail.

  • Is Australia responsible when international laws are breached and an Australian citizens human rights are degraded by another country?
    If the Australian Government will not support an Australian citizen then who will?
    Note the first report from Nils Melzer was issued in May 2019.

2. The following groups disagree

  • Even though Brexit has occurred the UK is still subject to European laws (the open boarder issue in Northern Ireland). Note that delegations from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France and the European Parliament have been monitoring the February hearing (ref case summary). The CoE Human Rights Commissioner is taking a close interest.
  • Over 1300 journals from 95 countries, Speak Up for Assange, have stated ‘The legal action underway against Mr Assange sets an extremely dangerous precedent for journalists, media organizations and the freedom of the press.‘ The case in Brazil against Glenn Grenwald seems to be using the Assange case as a president for media suppression.
  • Over 180 Doctors, Doctors For Assange, have advised senior Australian Parliamentarians of a Medical Emergency and urged them to bring Julian Assange home to Australia. In fear for Julians life and observing Julians health rapidly deteriorating the care of UK prison authorities issued their advice that Julian be immediately transferred to a University teaching hospital. In frustration at two unanswered request by the UK government their request was escalated to the Australian Government.
  • The Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group whose members mentioned this as a matter of sovereignty and asserting rights of Australian citizens abroad. ref more detail

3. Brief extracts from Nils Melzer (Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) report issued 29 October 2019

On Due Process

As far as the UK is concerned, the most consequential violations of Mr. Assange’s due process rights have included, inter alia:

(a) the Crown Prosecution Service’s sustained and proactive obstruction of Mr. Assange’s rights in the Swedish proceedings from 2010 to 2017 as set out in my earlier communications UA GBR 3/2019 of 27 May 2019, UA SWE 2/2019 of 28 May 2019, and AL SWE 4/2019 of 12 September 2019;

(b) documented conflicts of interest and repeated expressions of overt bias on the part of judicial magistrates in the course of the UK’s criminal and extradition proceedings since 11 April 2019;

(c) Mr. Assange’s arbitrary conviction and grossly disproportionate imprisonment for having violated UK bail by seeking, and receiving (sic!), diplomatic asylum from political persecution by another UN Member State; and

(d) what appears to be a deliberate, systematic and completely unwarranted obstruction of Mr. Assange’s access to legal counsel, documents, and other facilities commensurate with the complexity and requirements of the relevant proceedings, thus effectively depriving him of his most basic right to an adequate defense.


The official findings of my mandate, supported by two experienced medical experts specialized in the examination of torture victims, unquestionably provide “reasonable ground to believe” that British officials have contributed to Mr. Assange’s psychological torture or ill-treatment, whether through perpetration, or through attempt, complicity or other forms of participation.


Furthermore, not only the responsibility of officials at the operating level, but also the responsibility of superior officials and the political leadership must be fully investigated by competent, independent and impartial judicial authorities (CAT/GC2, para 26). Where investigations show that criminal conduct has occurred, the United Kingdom is legally obliged to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and to provide redress and rehabilitation to the victims (Arts. 5-9 and 13-14 CAT).

Editors note: Does this intent (if even morally) also flow to Australian officials and political leadership who by action or inaction have allowed this to continue?


I strongly recommend that Your Excellency’s Government retract the authorization for his extradition to the United States given by the preceding Government and proceed to releasing him from prison without further delay;

 Should this prove not to be possible, I strongly recommend that Your Excellency’s Government find an alternative setting for Mr. Assange, which does not involve his imprisonment, such as house arrest in an open environment allowing him to regain his health and resume a normal social and professional life, and to adequately prepare for any judicial or administrative proceeding which may be pending against him.