Ecuador seeks to stop 'evil' of Julian Assange US extradition | Media | The Guardian Julian Assange Ecuador seeks to stop 'evil' of Julian Assange US extradition Ecuadorean diplomats seek UK assurances that WikiLeaks founder will not be extradited to US after proceedings in Sweden The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, remains on bail in the UK, after losing his last supreme court appeal against extradition to Sweden. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP Thursday 26 July 2012 13.24 EDT First published on Thursday 26 July 2012 13.24 EDT Close This article is 4 years old The Ecuadorean government is seeking to avert the "evil" of the extradition of Julian Assange to the US, according to a senior legal adviser to the country's embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has sought sanctuary with a view to claiming asylum. Diplomats for the small Latin American country said they had been seeking assurances from the UK that Assange would not be extradited to the US after the completion of legal proceedings in Sweden , where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault.

Lawyers for Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadorean embassy for five weeks, believe there are secret plans to extradite him to the US to face trial, possibly for conspiracy to commit espionage. If found guilty, the 40-year-old could face life imprisonment. Two officials at the Ecuadorean embassy said it had been seeking assurances from both the UK and Sweden that Assange would not be eventually sent to the US, but had received no answer. They said Ecuador would now formally ask the US if there were any legal proceedings against Assange or "an investigation which has identified him as a target and which may result in a later extradition request". The senior legal adviser said: "In legal terms … the evil that Ecuador wishes to prevent is the extradition [of Assange] to the US. Now if there are ways and means of that being tied down, I think that would be a just solution." Assange first sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy, citing the UN declaration on human rights, on 19 June. Ever since, he has been living in the ground-floor embassy in a small, square room, which friends who have recently visited estimate is around 15ft wide.

The embassy, near the Harrods department store in Knightsbridge, has no courtyard, so Assange has been given exercise equipment. But he remains confined to the small room and adjoining corridor, with a window that barely opens. Meanwhile, diplomats at the embassy have spent recent weeks seeking to negotiate a solution to the legal impasse. Assange remains on bail after losing his last supreme court appeal against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in connection with accusations of sexual assault and rape in Stockholm in 2010. If he leaves the premises, he is liable to immediate arrest by the Metropolitan police, which has stationed two officers outside the building. A political adviser to the Ecuadorean government said Assange's asylum claim had presented the country with "an absolutely extraordinary case" that placed it at the centre of a global controversy involving four other countries: the UK, Sweden, the US and Australia, where Assange was born and remains a citizen. Ecuador was seeking to be an "honest broker", he said, while meeting its international obligations. He said that on Wednesday, Ecuador formally offered the Swedish prosecutor the opportunity to interview Assange inside the London embassy. Sweden had not responded to the proposal.

Most of the discussions have focused on seeking to establish whether, once Swedish legal proceedings against Assange are resolved, there will be any attempts to extradite him to the US. He said Ecuador was "deeply concerned" at the prospect of Assange's extradition to a country which has the death penalty. "Ecuador has also raised the point – and is very much concerned about – life sentence," he said. "According to our law, life sentence may be equally inhumane, in the sense that any person that has no prospect of leaving confinement is, in fact, as we see it, condemned to a death sentence [for] life. For us, that is equally inhumane." Assange's US lawyer, Michael Ratner, said he was certain Assange had already either been secretly indicted by a grand jury in Washington or would face extradition with a view to prosecution. He believed the death penalty remained a possibility. "I have no doubt there is a serious investigation, which has gone on, and is continuing, into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ," he said. However, Ratner said it was highly unlikely the US would confirm to Ecuador or any other party that it intended to prosecute Assange.

Ever since Assange unexpectedly sought refuge at the embassy five weeks ago, diplomats have been in regular discussions with both the Swedish and UK governments. The two officials estimated there had been more than 20 meetings – including video conferences – with the UK Foreign Office. There had also been around 10 meetings arranged between Ecuadorean and Swedish diplomats, they said. Diplomatic discussions were said to have been "friendly and polite". The Ecuadoreans said discussions had focused on what was likely to happen to Assange once legal proceedings in Sweden were completed. The senior legal adviser said that under extradition law, the concept of "specialty" ensures an individual can only be extradited to one country – in the case of Assange, Sweden. Once legal proceedings in that country have been completed, the individual is given a 45-day leave, during which they are free to go where they want. Assange should, therefore, be free to travel to any other state – including the UK, Ecuador or Australia – once legal proceedings against him are completed in Sweden. However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request – in this case the UK – thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country.

The senior legal adviser to the Ecuadoreans said that the home secretary, Theresa May, would need to waive specialty under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US. Despite repeated requests from Ecuador, the Foreign Office has not said whether or not May intends to exercise her powers to allow for any potential future extradition to the US. "The concerns that Ecuador has in relation to that whole process is that some states – not least of which the US – have been known to hold back on their extradition requests, to a timely moment, when they can serve the process with greatest impact," the senior legal adviser said. "And so the concern would be that the US has in mind a request for extradition on the basis of WikiLeaks charges." The officials said they did not expect a decision to be made on Assange's asylum claim until after the Olympics. A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "Since Mr Assange first entered the Ecuadorean embassy five weeks ago, we have repeatedly made clear to the Ecuadorean government that the UK has a binding legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences.

We have been seeking a diplomatic solution and expect Ecuador to resolve this issue in accordance with its international obligations. "The UK courts, including the supreme court, have confirmed that Mr Assange's extradition to Sweden complies with all the requirements of the UK's Extradition Act, including as regards the protection of his human rights. We have gone to great lengths to explain to Ecuador the human rights protections inherent in our law." Bid to mend fences made in impromptu remarks at the end of a Revolution Day ceremony in Guantánamo Published: 26 Jul 2012 Former first lady immortalised in film as Evita will be honoured on 100 peso notes, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner says Published: 26 Jul 2012 Justice for Assange Justice for Assange See the Updated Fact-Checker . UN rejects UK appeal on Assange On 30 November 2016, the United Nations rejected the United Kingdom’s attempt to appeal the UN’s February ruling in favour of Julian Assange. The decision therefore stands and the UK and Sweden are once again required to immediately put an end to Mr. Assange’s arbitrary detention and afford him monetary compensation.

Earlier this year the United Nations concluded the 16 month long case to which the UK was a party. The UK lost, appealed, and today - lost again. The UN instructed the UK and Sweden to take immediate steps to ensure Mr. Assange’s liberty, protection, and enjoyment of fundamental human rights. No steps have been taken, jeopardising Mr. Assange’s life, health and physical integrity, and undermining the UN system of human rights protection. Now, the United Nations has found that the United Kingdom’s request for review of this decision (filed on March 24) was inadmissible; the United Kingdom has now reached the end of the road in its attempt to overturn the ruling. As a member of the Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Kingdom must respect its commitment to the United Nations, and release Mr. Assange immediately. Now, more than ever, moral leadership is required; maintaining Mr. Assange’s effective detention (which stands at six years as of 7 December, 2016) will only serve to green light future abuses against defenders of free speech and human rights. Mr.

Assange stated "Now that all appeals are exhausted I expect that the UK and Sweden will comply with their international obligations and set me free. It is an obvious and grotesque injustice to detain someone for six years who hasn’t even been charged with an offence." Excerpt from UN Press Release : "The UN expert group also considered four requests for review* of previous opinions, submitted by the Arab Republic of Egypt, the State of Kuwait and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . The Working Group concluded that the requests did not meet the threshold of a review as enshrined in paragraph 21 of its methods of work,** and that they were thus not admissible." More: Liora Lazarus, Associate Professor in Law at the University of Oxford (St Anne’s College) on the status and justification of the UN decision on Assange BACKGROUND: Assange has spent over four years in the embassy of Ecuador. Read our Timeline to learn the key developments in the case. Journalist John Pilger’s article ’Julian Assange: The Untold Story Of An Epic Struggle For Justice’ is to date one of the best accounts of the miscarriages against Assange in this case. More . Assange: Frequently Asked Questions When did Assange enter the embassy?

He entered the embassy on June 19, 2012 and applied for political asylum, which was formally granted two months later. Why is Mr. Assange still in the embassy? The UK has encircled the embassy with police since he entered it and refuses to let him take up his asylum in Ecuador. The United States refuses to drop its attempts to pursue a national security case against Mr. Assange over WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Guantanamo bay and the US State Department. Sweden refuses to either drop its "preliminary investigation" or charge Mr. Assange with a crime. The UK states that it has spent more than $10m on the encirclement so far (see ) but refuses to disclose the breakdown of the cost. What does the law say? International law says that a sovereign country has decided to recognise Mr. Assange as needing protection from political persecution on humanitarian grounds. Mr. Assange has a right to meaningfully exercise that protection through passage to Ecuador. Ecuador invoked a number of applicable conventions, including the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The United Kingdom and Sweden are also parties to the 1951 Convention and are obligated to recognise the asylum decision of Ecuador.

While both states have been careful to avoid saying that they do not recognise the asylum, their actions can only be interpreted as a wilful violation of Mr. Assange’s right to ’seek, receive and enjoy’ his asylum. In international law, the obligation to protect persons from persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention prevails over extradition agreements between states. Why do the UK and Sweden disobey international law? The United Kingdom says it has a treaty obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden even though he has not been charged with an offense. There is a conflict between the United Kingdom’s obligations to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its obligations under the European Arrest Warrant system. It is established law that these conflicts are to be resolved in favour of the higher obligation which is to the 1951 convention. Rather than following international law, the United Kingdom has chosen to interpret the conflict in favor of its geopolitical alliances. The United Kingdom has a history of breaking international law in this manner, for example, in its invasion of Iraq, its cooperation with US rendition operations, and its facilitation of global mass spying via its intelligence service GCHQ. Sweden is also a party to these last two violations.

Why was he given asylum? Mr. Assange’s asylum claim was upheld on two points. Firstly, that there was a reasonable fear of persecution by the United States as a result of his publishing work, due to the ongoing US Department of Justice probe and political calls for his assassination. (See here and here .) Secondly, that neither the US, UK, Sweden, nor his home country, Australia, were willing or able to protect him. Diplomatic conditions are often applied to extraditions, so Ecuador asked the UK to veto an onwards US extradition; the UK refused. Ecuador asked Sweden to veto an onwards US extradition or come to the embassy to interview Mr. Assange; Sweden refused both requests. Ecuador granted Mr. Assange asylum thereafter, and now has obligations under international law to protect Mr. Assange. The asylum cannot be revoked. What is the status of the US investigation against Mr. Assange? The US Department of Justice confirmed in its April 2014 court filings that the national security criminal investigation and "pending prosecution" proceed. The FBI is leading the investigation. A dozen other agencies have been involved. See here . What is the status of the Swedish investigation against Mr. Assange?

Formally, it is at the stage of "preliminary investigation." Mr. Assange has not been charged. The investigation was previously canceled with the explanation that there were no grounds to accuse Mr. Assange. The prosecutor has yet to decide whether the investigation should turn into a formal investigation or not. Is Mr. Assange accused of ’rape’? Over the past year, new information has emerged that both women explicitly deny having been raped by Mr. Assange. In a statement to the UK Supreme Court, the prosecutor acknowledged that the complainants wished only to ask the police for advice about HIV tests, having discovered they’d had both had sex with Mr. Assange. (There has never been an allegation Mr. Assange has HIV.) Neither of the women wished to lodge a formal complaint. The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they consented to the sex.

A senior prosecutor already dismissed the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for attorney general, took over the investigation and resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange. Due to the great number of incorrect reports of, it is best to rely on primary source documents in this matter, which are on the internet and the UK Supreme Court "Agreed Statements of Facts" agreed to by the UK, the Swedish authoritiesm and Mr. Assange’s legal team. (See here and here .) Are the two women CIA agents? Is the Swedish case a plot? While the Swedish government’s close relationship with the United States may have a bearing on its public statements in the matter, Mr. Assange has never accused the two women of being influenced by these considerations. It has been widely misreported that he has. Telephone records show that one of the women says that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything", "it was the police who made up the charges". The Swedish authorities seized the opportunity to ’get’ Mr. Assange.

This was subsequently driven by a prominent Swedish politician, Claes Borgström, who became the centre of media attention as the state-funded representative of the two women. Sweden was just three weeks away from the general elections, and Borgström was running for the position of attorney general, and other scandals in his party had dominated the news. The case gained him extraordinary media exposure in the run up to the election by keeping the case alive, as well as replacing other stories. Borgström subsequently billed the state for 80 hours of speaking to the press in relation to just one of the women. At the time Borgström was also embroiled in the notorious Quick scandal, widely regarded as the worst in Sweden’s judicial history. Since 2010, it has become increasingly apparent that personal and national prestige have played a role in maintaining the stalemate. (See here .) Why is the US investigation taking so long? The WikiLeaks investigation is classed as a national security case. Multi-year investigations are common in national security cases, but the US government has also intimated that it would wait until Mr. Assange was in Sweden before proceeding further. The investigation is politically and diplomatically charged as would be a future extradition.

These factors are likely also weighing on US decision-making as to timing. See here Is Mr. Assange Swedish? No. Mr. Assange is Australian and has no connection to Sweden and does not speak Swedish. He visited Sweden in August 2010 to give a lecture about the war in Afghanistan (where Swedish forces operate under US command). What is the status of the United Kingdom’s actions against Mr. Assange? Documents from Edward Snowden reveal that UK intelligence agency GCHQ was spying on WikiLeaks in 2012. The UK government admits to spending more than $10m on the ongoing embassy police encirclement against Mr. Assange, a figure increasing about $15k a day. Despite requests, it has refused to divulge further information. The encirclement expenditure has been a source of cross-party controversy in the United Kingdom, with the cost being equal 24,828 hospital beds or the training of 285 police. The UK government refuses to release most of its materials on Mr. Assange saying that to do so would compromise the United Kingdom’s international relationships and national security. But several prominent figures have spoken out about the situation.

"It’s absolutely ridiculous, that money should be spent on frontline policing. It’s completely wasted." London Mayor Boris Johnson "It’s absolute madness... either somebody else has to pay - that is, the Swedish authorities - or we just have to back off and stop guarding the embassy. It is ludicrous." Baroness Jenny Jones, deputy chair of the Police & Crime Committee at the London Assembly It is unfair for taxpayers to continue to fund this farce. The time has come for the Met to review its strategy on Assange, and withdraw the officers currently guarding the Ecuadorian embassy." Former Scotland Yard royalty protection chief Dai Davies Julian Assange seeks to take extradition fight to supreme court | Media | The Guardian Julian Assange Julian Assange seeks to take extradition fight to supreme court WikiLeaks founder will ask permission to appeal against high court ruling that he must face sex crime charges in Sweden Julian Assange arrives to speak to Occupy protesters outside St Paul's cathedral in London on October 15.

Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Tuesday 15 November 2011 12.37 EST First published on Tuesday 15 November 2011 12.37 EST Close This article is 5 years old The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange , is to apply for a supreme court hearing to appeal against extradition to Sweden to face sex crime allegations. His solicitor, Gareth Peirce, confirmed he will ask senior judges in London on 5 December to certify that his case should be considered by the highest court in the land. He must establish that his case raises "a question of law of general public importance". Assange, 40, lost a high court battle against removal on 2 November but has announced he wants to fight on against a European arrest warrant that has been outstanding since last December. A supreme court hearing would be the third stage of the 40-year old Australian's appeal against extradition to face allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion by two women he met on a visit to Stockholm in August 2010. Assange's decision means a verdict on whether he should be extradited could be delayed until as late as next summer, legal observers said.

If he can persuade the high court that there is a question of law at stake, he must then seek leave to appeal, probably directly from the supreme court. That could take at least three months. Only then, if he is successful, could a date be set for a supreme court hearing, possibly around early summer. If Assange fails to persuade the high court judges there is a question of law at stake on 5 December, then he could be removed in the following days, under the terms of the warrant. Earlier this month the president of the Queen's bench division, Sir John Thomas, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley, threw out Assange's four-point appeal against the Swedish prosecutor's European arrest warrant. In their judgment, they said Assange had argued the rape claim against him dating from his trip to Stockholm did not in fact amount to rape, but they concluded "the allegation that he had sexual intercourse ... without a condom would amount to an allegation of rape in England and Wales".

The judges also ruled the two alleged offences of sexual molestation against the woman known as AA on two nights, and the allegation of unlawful coercion relating to his alleged use of violence by holding AA's arms and forcefully spreading her legs while lying on top of her, could be considered offences in England and Wales, which is a prerequisite for extradition. The warrant was "proportionate", they said, dismissing Assange's argument that it was not issued by a valid authority. The court also rejected Assange's assertion that the descriptions of the offences were unfair and inaccurate. After the hearing Assange said: "I have not been charged with any crime in any country. The European arrest warrant (EAW) is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today. "No doubt there will be many attempts made to try to spin these proceedings as they occurred today but they were merely technical." Assange remains on bail, living at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, the home of Vaughan Smith, founder of the Frontline Club for journalists. The decision to appeal again means it looks likely Assange will be spending a second consecutive Christmas with his host.

Julian Assange wins right to pursue extradition fight - BBC News BBC News Julian Assange wins right to pursue extradition fight 5 December 2011 Image copyright PA Image caption The judges refused Wikileaks founder Julian Assange permission to appeal Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won the right to petition the UK Supreme Court in his fight against extradition to Sweden. He lost a High Court battle last month to be extradited over alleged sex offences, which he denies. Judges refused Mr Assange permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court - but said his case raised "a question of general public importance". He can now directly ask the Supreme Court to look at his case. However, Mr Assange, who was at the London court to hear the judges' ruling, still has no automatic right to be heard by the highest court in the UK. He was cheered by supporters as he left the Royal Courts of Justice and, alluding to an MPs' debate later on calls for the renegotiation of extradition rules, he said there were "many aggrieved families in the UK and other countries and in Europe struggling for justice". Speaking of his own case, he said: "I think that is the correct decision, and I am thankful.

The long struggle for justice for me and others continues." 'Politically motivated' Mr Assange, 40, is founder of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, which has angered the United States by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified US documents. The Australian faces extradition over accusations he raped a woman and sexually molested another in Stockholm in August last year. He denies the allegations. Legal process explained No automatic right to be heard in UK's highest court Supreme Justices consider important points of law Lower courts must first certify a point of general public importance Appellant can then petition Supreme Court It then decides whether to examine a case in full Mr Assange was arrested in London a year ago on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and has been living at the country estate of a supporter under stringent bail conditions. He claims his arrest was politically motivated and linked to the activities of Wikileaks. District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in February that Mr Assange should be extradited to face investigation following a hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in central London. The decision was upheld at the High Court last month. Mr Assange attempted to appeal the decision on two grounds.

He argued the highest court should consider whether his extradition would be unlawful because the request was made by a "partisan prosecutor working for the executive" and whether he could be defined as "the accused" even though no decision has been taken to prosecute him. 'Quickly as possible' On Monday the High Court certified that the case raised the question of whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued the EAW against Mr Assange was a "judicial authority". Mr Assange's lawyers argue the prosecutor was not, and the warrant was therefore invalid. Mark Summers, appearing for Mr Assange, said: "Public prosecutors should not, in any circumstances, be permitted to issue EAWs." One of the two judges, Sir John Thomas, told Mr Summers the court's view was that it had "very little doubt that, as a matter of law, the prosecutor was within the scheme" for issuing warrants, and Mr Assange's chances of success in the Supreme Court were "extraordinarily slim". But the judge said the court felt "constrained" to certify that the case raised a question of general public importance. However, it would be left to the Supreme Court to decide whether to give Assange actual leave to appeal, it was ruled.

Sir John said: "If leave is granted by the Supreme Court we would, for obvious reasons, ask that the point is decided as quickly as possible." Outside the court Mr Assange's lawyer, Gareth Peirce, said his legal team had 14 days to submit a written petition to the Supreme Court. She told reporters that if the court refused to hear the request then Mr Assange would have exhausted all legal avenues in Britain. Timeline: Julian Assange's extradition battle - CNN.com Timeline: Julian Assange's extradition battle By Alexis Lai, CNN Updated 10:07 AM ET, Thu August 16, 2012 Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks to the media outside the High Court in London on December 5, 2011.

Story highlights Ecuador grants asylum to Assange, who remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London UK police say they will not grant safe passage to Wikileaks founder Ecuador Foreign Minister says British authorities have threatened to "assault" embassy August 20, 2010 Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Julian Assange amid allegations of rape and molestation from two female Wikileaks volunteers earlier that month. The next day, the prosecutor's office announces it is rescinding the arrest warrant while the rape charge is unfounded. The molestation allegation remains. August 31, 2010 Assange is questioned by Stockholm police and formally told of the charges against him, all of which he denies as a smear campaign. Swedish prosecutors announce the next day that they are reopening the rape case against him, while the molestation charge will be upgraded to sexual coercion and sexual molestation. November 18, 2010 Will Assange achieve asylum?

02:34 JUST WATCHED Friend says Assange 'running for justice' 08:43 JUST WATCHED MUST WATCH Police seek Assange after asylum claim 00:44 Swedish prosecutors announce the courts have approved their request to issue arrest warrants to question Assange, who is now in London. On November 20, the Stockholm Criminal Court issues an international arrest warrant for Assange, stating he is suspected of several counts of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force. Interpol later issues a "red notice" upon Sweden's request. December 8, 2010 Assange turns himself in to London police. He is remanded in custody after an extradition hearing finds him a flight risk. On December 16, the court finalizes its decision to grant him conditional bail. Celebrity supporters rally around him, paying his £240,000 ($376,000) bail and providing a mansion for his house arrest. February 7- 24, 2011 Assange attends extradition hearings at London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court, which ultimately rules in support of his extradition to Sweden. Assange then launches an appeal at the High Court.

November 2, 2011 After a series of hearings in July, the British High Court defers its decision until November, ultimately ruling against Assange's appeal. Assange has two weeks to seek the court's permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. December 5, 2011 The High Court announces that Assange will be allowed to appeal its decision on the legal technicality of whether the Swedish public prosecutor is a judicial authority, a status needed to sign an arrest warrant. The case now moves to the Supreme Court, Britain's highest judicial authority. May 30, 2012 The Supreme Court denies Assange's appeal against his extradition to Sweden, but in an unusual move, grants him permission to file an appeal. On June 14, it dismisses his application to reopen his appeal. June 19, 2012 Assange flees to Ecuador's embassy in London to request political asylum. London police say he is subject to arrest for breaking the terms of his bail by seeking asylum. August 15, 2012 Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, says his government will announce its decision on Assange's asylum request the next day.

He says Ecuador received written notice from British authorities that they would "assault" the country's embassy in London if Assange was not handed over. August 16, 2012 Ecuador announces it has granted asylum to Assange because it believes he will be politically persecuted if extradited. The UK says it is disappointed by the decision and will not grant safe passage out of the country to Assange, who has now been holed up inside Ecuador's embassy in London for nearly two months. UK Court Okays Julian Assange Extradition to Sweden UK Court Okays Julian Assange Extradition to Sweden RANDY KREIDER Pin it Share Britain's highest court has cleared the way for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces questioning over alleged sex crimes. In a 5-2 vote, the British Supreme Court upheld the validity of an arrest warrant made by a Swedish prosecutor to question Assange over accusations by two Swedish women that he sexually assaulted them. In its ruling, announced at a hearing Wednesday, the court dismissed Assange's argument that the Swedish Prosecution Authority, which issued the warrant in November 2010, did not have the legal authority to do so.

But in a last-minute bid to extend Assange's fight to stay in England, where he has remained under house arrest at a supporter's country manor during the 18-month-long legal battle, his lawyer asked the justice who announced the decision for 14 days to make an application to reopen the case. The judge granted the request, giving Assange and his legal team until June 13 to submit the application, which the Supreme Court would use to consider whether to resurrect the appeal. Assange was not present at the court hearing, according to media reports. In August 2010, police in Sweden began investigating accusations of sexual assault against Assange made by two women. According to British police documents, one of the accusers claims Assange pulled her clothes off, pinioned her arms and legs and refused to use a condom. She told a friend that the act was both violent and the worst sex she'd ever had. A British attorney representing Swedish prosecutors told the court earlier this year that Assange had raped the second woman while she was sleeping. Assange has been under house arrest in a mansion in the British countryside since December 2010.

He has hosted a television talk show on the international cable channel Russia Today, or RT, from the house since March. In Assange's autobiography, "Julian Assange: The Unauthorized Autobiography," which was published in September 2011 over Assange's objections, he called the assault accusations a "misunderstanding" with former friends. Over the past few years, Assange has thrust himself into the spotlight as the man behind some of the largest intelligence leaks in U.S. history. Extradition deadline passes for WikiLeaks' Assange - CNN.com Extradition deadline passes for WikiLeaks' Assange By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN Updated 7:16 PM ET, Sat July 7, 2012 Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds. Julian Assange is seeking to avoid being sent to Sweden over claims of sexual assault.

Story highlights Swedish authorities are seeking to question Julian Assange over sex crime allegations Assange lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden He denies wrongdoing and says he fears extradition from Sweden to the United States Assange founded WikiLeaks, a website that facilitates the leaking of secret documents A deadline for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden for questioning in sexual assault allegations came and went Saturday with no apparent movement. Assange is believed to still be inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been holed up since applying for political asylum on June 19. The South American country has said it is considering his application. The UK Supreme Court dismissed his bid to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden on June 14. JUST WATCHED MUST WATCH Assange resisting extradition 01:00 "The court has ordered that the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today," the Swedish Prosecution Authority said at the time. "In accordance with the framework on European arrest warrants, the court's decision means that Mr. Assange will be surrendered to Sweden within 10 days after the 14th day." Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for Sweden's Prosecution Authority, confirmed earlier that Saturday was the expected deadline for Assange's surrender.

UK police say Assange is in violation of his bail by staying at the embassy, and that ignoring the notice to turn himself in is a further violation. However, they are unable to enter the embassy under diplomatic protocol. London's Metropolitan Police had declined to comment on whether any action would be taken Saturday. Assange is seeking to avoid being sent to Sweden over claims of rape and sexual molestation. He has been arrested in absentia, Swedish prosecutors have said. He was arrested in Britain in 2010 because Swedish authorities wanted to question him about the allegations, which he denies. His bail conditions included staying every night at the home of a supporter outside of London. Two women have accused Assange of sexually assaulting them in August 2010, when he was visiting Sweden in connection with a WikiLeaks release of internal U.S. military documents. He was arrested in Britain that December and has been fighting extradition ever since, saying the allegations are retribution for his organization's disclosure of American secrets. Susan Benn, of the Julian Assange defense fund, said on June 29 that Assange would not honor a notice served to him by British police a day earlier requiring him to turn himself in to authorities.

Benn said the United States had empaneled a grand jury in its goal to press charges against Assange. Turning himself in would have started a process that would end with Assange being extradited to the United States, she said. WikiLeaks, which facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information, has published about 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, causing embarrassment to the government and others. It also has published hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents relating to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange sought refuge at the embassy five days after the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed a bid to reopen his appeal of the decision to send him to Sweden -- his last option in British courts. It is unclear when Ecuador will make a decision on Assange's asylum request. Wikileaks' Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy - BBC News BBC News Wikileaks' Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy 20 June 2012 Close share panel Image copyright AFP Image caption Mr Assange is facing extradition to Sweden from Britain for questioning over alleged sex crimes Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy. The South American country says it is "studying and analysing the request".

Last week, the UK's Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange's bid to reopen an appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes. He fears that if he is sent to Sweden it may lead to him being sent to the US to face charges over Wikileaks for which he could face the death penalty. Mr Assange denies any wrongdoing. Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US. The UK Foreign Office - which said that as Mr Assange was now in the embassy he was "on diplomatic territory and beyond the reach of the police" - added that it would work with Ecuador to resolve the situation. In 2010, Mr Assange - whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses - was briefly offered Ecuadorean residency. But the offer from the country's deputy foreign minister - who said he was acting because Ecuador wanted to allow Mr Assange to freely present the information he had - was dismissed by President Rafael Correa who said he had not approved it.

Swedish prosecutors want to question Mr Assange over allegations of rape and sexual assault while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture. The claims were made by two female Wikileaks supporters in mid-2010. No charges have been filed. The Australian anti-secrecy campaigner, who claims the sex was consensual, could still take his case against extradition to the ECHR and has until 28 June to make the move, or extradition proceedings will begin. Mr Assange is on £200,000 bail which was provided by several high-profile supporters including socialite Jemima Khan and Ken Loach, who each offered £20,000 as surety. 'Minimum guarantees' In a statement , Ecuador's embassy in London said Mr Assange arrived there on Tuesday afternoon to seek asylum. "As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito," it said.

Image copyright AP Image caption Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Mr Assange had claimed he was being persecuted "While the department assesses Mr Assange's application, Mr Assange will remain at the embassy, under the protection of the Ecuadorean government." It said the decision to consider the bid for asylum "should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden". Ecuador would seek the views of the governments of the UK, Sweden and the US before making its decision, it added. Mr Assange issued a statement, saying he was "grateful to the Ecuadorean ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application". Associated Press quoted Ecuador foreign minister Ricardo Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted. Mr Assange feared Sweden would not protect him from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

Labour peer and human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy QC said she understood his Swedish lawyers had warned him that if extradited to their country - which had been expected imminently - he would be handed over to the US at the conclusion of the sexual assaults investigation. But she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "In international law, a country to which a person is surrendered should only deal with him on the offences for which he has been surrendered and, at the moment it's finished, he should be allowed to exit that country." If Sweden could provide such an undertaking, it was likely Ecuador would be happy to let Mr Assange proceed there, she added. 'Organised campaign' Jemima Khan, one of several supporters to help put up Mr Assange's £200,000 bail, said on Twitter that she had expected him to face the allegations, adding: "I am as surprised as anyone by this". Baroness Kennedy said that, as it was known exactly where Mr Assange was, his supporters would have a strong argument for getting their money back because bail was usually put up to prevent flight or to ensure attendance at court.

Vaughan Smith, a friend who allowed Mr Assange to stay at his Norfolk home until December 2011, told the BBC he was surprised by the move but understood why he may have decided to seek asylum. "There's been an organised campaign to undermine him," Mr Smith said, "and he believed that if he was sent to Sweden he would be sent to America." Wikileaks has posted an alert on its Twitter feed: "ALERT: Julian Assange has requested political asylum and is under the protection of the Ecuadorean embassy in London."

Question: Which country applied to the UK courts for the extradition of Julian Assange?
Answer: Sweden