Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange eftersökt för våldtäkt i Sverige

Overall, the continued procrastination on the part of the Swedish prosecution, which has already caused the expiry of AA’s allegations in August 2015, is now increasingly likely to also cause SW’s allegations to expire under the applicable 10-year statute of limitations, thus foreseeably depriving not only Mr. Assange, but also AA and SW, as well as the general public of any opportunity to establish the truth regarding these allegations and to ensure accountability, justice and redress. It is clear that, in this scenario, the reputational harm to Mr. Assange would be irreversible.

The medical, factual and circumstantial evidence at my disposal shows that the manner in which Sweden conducted its preliminary investigation against Mr. Assange, including the unrestrained and unqualified dissemination and perpetuation of the “rape- suspect” narrative, was the primary factor that triggered, enabled and encouraged the subsequent campaign of sustained and concerted public mobbing and judicial persecution against Mr. Assange in various countries, the cumulative effects of which can only described as psychological torture. In my assessment, without the arbitrariness of the Swedish investigation, Mr. Assange most likely would not have been exposed to abuse and defamation amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This mandate has consistently taken the position that the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is not territorially limited (A/70/303, para 65-66) and that its applicability does not depend on physical custody, but on the ability of a State to inflict pain, suffering or humiliation meeting the definitional requirements of articles 1 or 16 of the CAT (A/72/178, para 33-36). Moreover, the obligation to take effective preventative measures under articles 2 and 16 CAT is not limited to potential victims within the State’s jurisdiction, but “clearly encompasses action taken by States in their own jurisdictions to prevent torture or other ill-treatment extraterritorially” (A/70/303, §33). Thus, irrespective of geographical location of Mr. Assange, Sweden has a legal obligation to prevent, prosecute and punish acts of torture and ill-treatment against him caused from within Swedish jurisdiction, including mere “attempts”, “complicity” and “participation” (Art. 4(1) CAT).

There is compelling evidence that Swedish officials have actively and knowingly contributed to the psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on Mr. Assange, whether through direct perpetration, or through complicity or participation, any of which is sufficient to trigger Sweden’s international obligation to investigate, prosecute, and provide redress and rehabilitation under the CAT and the CCPR.