A recent RTI reply from the office of the State Police Headquarters in Cuttack, Odisha, since 2016-2017, showed that a total of 868 complaints had been received against erring police officials from the rank of constables to Inspectors of Police who are mostly confined to their particular police stations and deal with the public directly. However, the same RTI reply indicates that when it came to disciplinary actions, the total number of police officials in the state against whom disciplinary actions were taken for misbehaviour with public in 2016 and 2017 stood at “zero”. The report noted, “In a clear hint of ‘all is not well’ with the department, the self-admission of the police department now hints that many errant police officials ranging from the ranks of constables to Indian Police Service (IPS) cadres had been booked on the counts of bad behaviour and other charges.”

In 2016, a total of 439 such cases were registered, while in 2017, a total of 429 such cases were registered, which included 21 complaints against “top honchos”.

In this overall scenario, the recent conviction of ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt on June 20, with life imprisonment in a 30 year old alleged custodial death case has once again brought the question of accountability in the police machinery to the forefront. This area has remained a black hole, where not only is it nearly impossible to bring any of the police officials responsible for a crime to justice, but also it’s equally difficult to access data or information on the subject. Bhatt’s case is also mired in allegations of political vendetta as the same state government that rigorously prosecuted him over the past seven years, had protected him against prosecution till 2011.

The Times of India today reported how, in India saw 1,557 custodial deaths between 2001 and 2016, the last year for which data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) is available. Over these 16 years, the number of policemen convicted for custodial deaths is a mere 26, the vast majority of them in Uttar Pradesh. Data compiled from editions of NCRB’s annual publication ‘Crime in India’ shows that over this 16-year period, the largest number of custodial deaths, 362, happened in Maharashtra followed by Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Gujarat stands at number 3 with 180 custodial deaths in this period, with no officer being convicted for these crimes. These were the only states with over 100 custodial deaths each. Of these, only in the case of UP were there any convictions. UP witnessed 17 policemen being convicted for custodial deaths. None of the other four, including Gujarat, seen even one policemen being convicted for people dying in custody during this period. The government of India has simply stopped uploading data on this and other issues since 2016.

Custodial crimes and complaints against police personnel
Custodial death is the event of demise of an individual, who has been detained by the police on being convicted or being under trial.  According to the latest available National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB, 2016) data available, in a total number of 92 cases of custodial deaths (which included both persons on remand and not on remand), zero number of policemen were convicted. Of the 60 custodial deaths that took place when the person was in custody but not on remand (before being produced in court), less than a third saw cases registered against police personnel in connection with deaths and a sixth saw a charge sheet being filed against the accused policemen/officers.

Further, per NCRB, of the 32 total deaths while the person was in custody (judicial or police), a judicial enquiry was ordered in 28 cases. Only in six incidents, cases were registered against police personnel in connection with deaths. In 14 of these cases, policemen were charge sheeted and but all were acquitted.

In all, there were 209 cases of “Human Rights Violation by Police” (page number 536), only in one fourth of these cases “police personnel were charge sheeted” but there were zero convictions.

A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted, “While Indian police typically blame deaths in custody on suicide, illness, or natural causes, family members of victims frequently allege that the deaths were the result of torture or other ill-treatment.” In 2015, police registered cases against fellow police officers in only 33 of the 97 deaths in police custody. Satyabrata Pal, until 2014 a member of the National Human Rights Commission, told Human Rights Watch, “The entire intention in a police internal investigation is to whitewash.”

The 114 page report, “Bound by Brotherhood: India’s failure to End Killings in Police Custody” noted that between 2010 and 2015, there were at least 591 custodial deaths.

While the NCRB report for the year 2016 placed total number of custodial deaths at 98, another report titled “Torture Update: India” published by Asian Centre of Human Rights (ACHR) in June 2018 said that while replying to a question in Rajya Sabha, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Hansraj Gangaram Ahir stated that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) registered a total of 1674 cases of custodial deaths including 1530 deaths in judicial custody and 144 deaths in police custody between April 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018. This placed the numbers at a worrying five deaths per day in custody!

The Supreme Court, in March 2018, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had said “Prisoners can’t be kept at in jails like animals” after it was informed that many of the over 1300 prisons across the country were overcrowded, to as much as 600 percent in some cases.

The ACHR report noted, “During this period (1 April 2017- 28 February 2018), the highest number of custodial deaths took place in Uttar Pradesh (374) followed by Maharashtra (137), West Bengal (132), Punjab (128), Madhya Pradesh (113), Bihar (109), Rajasthan (89), Tamil Nadu (76), Gujarat (61), Odisha (56), Jharkhand (55), Chhattisgarh (54), Haryana (48), Delhi (47), Assam (37), Andhra Pradesh (35), Uttarakhand and Telangana (17 each), Karnataka (15), Himachal Pradesh (8), Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura (6 each), Jammu & Kashmir and Meghalaya (4 each), Mizoram (3), Manipur, Chandigarh, Sikkim and Nagaland (2 each). The States and Union Territories where no custodial death took place are Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry.”

Even other countries have feared extraditing prisoners back to the country for the fear of torture. India refuses to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). A Bill to statutorily prevent torture following international recommendations and the recommendations of the Indian Law Commission has been pending in Parliament since 2010.

While successive governments have remained callous about the status of torture, Indian prisons and custodial death, the sudden extraordinary punishment awarded to Bhatt, a visible critique of the current regime and a whistle-blower does ring an alarm bell. Not only could this conviction be rooted in political vendetta, but also it does grave injustice to the situation of hundreds and thousands under-trials, mostly Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, Kashmiris lodged in Indian jails without seeing so much as a ray of light in their cramped cells.

The post In a country where custodial deaths & torture have been normalised, its a whistle-blower who gets ‘exemplary punishment’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

यह उदाहरण हमारे और आपके मुहल्ले या कालोनी में बच्चों की लड़ाईयों में अक्सर ही सबके सामने आया होगा , कल प्रधानमंत्री जी ने भी उसी बच्चे की तरह व्यवहार किया , और जब सारा विपक्ष उनके संसद में होने की माँग कर रहा है तो वह भाजपा संसदीय दल की बैठक में उसी बच्चे की तरह रोकर सफाईयाँ दे रहे थे कि "विपक्ष गलत जानकारी फैला रहा है" "मेरा मकसद यह था" , "आप लोग जनता को समझाईये" , " इस नोटबंदी को सर्जिकल स्ट्राईक मत कहिए" इत्यादि इत्यादि।

जैसे अपने घर में जाकर रोने वाला ज़िद्दी लड़का अक्सर गलत होता है वैसे ही यहाँ प्रधानमंत्री भी गलत हैं, क्युँकि नोटबंदी को एक और सर्जिकल स्ट्राईक उन्होंने खुद 22 अक्टूबर 2016 को वड़ोदरा की अपनी पिछली ही मीटिंग में कहा था और उनके तब के भाषण से प्रेरित होकर ही उनके परिवार वालों ने नोटबंदी को सर्जिकल स्ट्राईक कहना प्रारंभ किया , आज प्रधानमंत्री दूसरे को "सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक" कहने से मना कर रहे हैं तो मान लीजिए कि वह अपने निर्णय में फँस चुके हैं और पूरे देश को फँसा चुके हैं जिसपर लीपापोती करने के लिए वह अपनी "भाँड मीडिया" और खुद की अभिनय क्षमता का प्रयोग कर रहे हैं, प्रधानमंत्री जी आने वाले दिनों में भारतीय राजनीति के "ट्रेजडी किंग" होने जा रहे हैं।

ध्यान दीजिए कि 8 नवम्बर के बाद प्रधानमंत्री जी ताबड़तोड़ सभाएँ कर रहे हैं , जापान में एक , महाराष्ट्र और गोवा में 3 , गाज़ीपुर में 1 , आगरा में 1 , पत्रकारिता से संबंधित एक कार्यक्रम में एक और कल भी किसी प्रोग्राम में एक , अर्थात 13 दिन में 8 प्रवचन और हो सकता है कि दो एक दिन में दो एक और प्रवचन देकर रविवार को "मन की बात" करें तो कुल 12 भाषण, और सब जगह देश को समझाने का प्रयास , तो आप खुद समझ सकते हैं कि एक तो प्रधानमंत्री को भी देश की नाराजगी का एहसास है और दूसरा यह कि "नोटबंदी" के लिए पूरी स्क्रिप्ट लिखी गयी , प्रधानमंत्री के भाषणबाजी के प्रोग्राम तय किए गये , बस तैयारी इस बात की नहीं की गयी कि इस नोटबंदी के कारण बर्बाद होने वाली जनता को और क्या विकल्प दिए जाएँ जिससे देश में अव्यवस्था ना फैले।

दरअसल संघ की ट्रेनिंग से इन नागपुरियों के पास गजब की थेथरई होती है , शब्दों को चबा चबा कर आक्रामक रुप से बोलने की कला होती है और प्रधानमंत्री इस कला के सबसे बड़े उदाहरण हैं , उनको लगता है कि उनके भाषण देने , चीख चीख कर समझाने , हाथ उठवा देने से गरीब जनता अपनी भूख और पैसे की ज़रूरत भूल जाएगी तो यह उनकी मुर्खता ही है।

कल राज्यसभा में ये बोल रहे थे कि यह विषय वित्तमंत्री के स्तर का है तो प्रधानमंत्री को सदन में बुलाने की ज़िद क्युँ ? तो सवाल उठेगा ही कि यह विषय वित्तमंत्री के स्तर के विषय को प्रधानमंत्री ने 8 नवंबर को खुद घोषणा क्युँ की ? जब खुद घोषणा की तो वित्तमंत्री से जवाब क्यूँ ?

देश फँस चुका है और प्रधानमंत्री समझ चुके हैं कि वह देश को फँसा चुके हैं , उदाहरण देखिए कि नोटबंदी की घोषणा के अगले ही दिन प्रधानमंत्री जापान निकल गये और वहाँ उचक उचक कर , मटक मटक कर , ताली बजा बजा कर अपने निर्णय पर खुद की पीठ ठोक रहे थे और अब वह सुबक सुबक कर रो रहे हैं।

गलती मानकर उसमें सुधार करने की बजाए रोना और उलहना देना कायरता की निशानी है और देश का प्रधानमंत्री बार बार खुद के कायर होने का उदाहरण दे रहा है , पूरा देश परेशान है और प्रधानमंत्री खुद देश को संसद में जवाब देने की बजाए संसदीय दल के पल्लू में बैठ कर सुबक रहे हैं तो माफ कीजिएगा उनके पास 56" की छाती नहीं कुछ और ही है।

संसद का सामना ना करना और वहाँ के सवाल जवाब से भागना वैसे ही है जैसे मुहल्ले का वह ज़िद्दी बच्चा अपने स्कूल की कक्षा से भागता है , निश्चित रूप से देश और प्रधानमंत्री फँस चुके हैं ।

The post परेशान देश और रोता प्रधानमंत्री appeared first on SabrangIndia.

September, 2016: Teesta Setalvad, civil rights activist and journalist, urged young people to contribute towards building an inclusive and equal society.

As one of the speakers at Vista 2016, the annual business fest organized by the FII Club at IIM Bangalore, she remarked that India and the south Asian region had gained a lot in importance in the present world. “India has so much to offer in terms of multiplicity and plurality — that is the essence of Indian-ness. This idea of India was sought to be enshrined in our Constitution. The basis of the Preamble of the Constitution is the vision that every citizen of India — regardless of case, creed, community, etc. – has the right to equality before the law, and a non-discriminatory framework,” she said.

“We need to look within and see, are we able to expand our notion of equality to encompass all around us? Are we consciously or unconsciously ‘othering’ people?” she asked.

In this context, she also mentioned that media often did a disservice to causes as they “engaged in shouting matches rather than in fruitful and constructive exchange of opinions with diverse kinds of people”.

She went on to observe, “History has shown us that community memories dominate, tend to have a trickle-down effect on modern day politics as we resonate with our old prejudices, old pains. ‘Othering’ can be extremely dangerous for the country,” she said.

“Communalism, caste, untouchability, gender inequality… this is the dark underbelly of Indian society, and we need to confront this,” she said, adding that if one believed in democracy, then one had to pay heed to even the last dissenting voice.

(First Published: http://www.iimb.ernet.in/node/15354
We must expand our notion of equality to encompass all around us: Teesta Setalvad, IIMB Website)

The post We must expand our notion of equality to encompass all around us: Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Merkel has defended her decision, trying to stress that it did not amount to a verdict on whether Jan Böhmermann was guilty or not, but should be understood as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s independence, she is facing increasing criticism for the act. Merkel was left with the final decision on whether Germany’s state prosecutor should start proceedings against Böhmermann after Erdoğan requested the comedian be prosecuted. Under an obscure section of Germany’s criminal code, prosecution for insults against organs or representatives of foreign states requires both a notification from the offended party and an authorisation from the government.

PEN International has issued a strong statement in condemnation of the decision.  

“The German government’s authorisation for the prosecution of comedian Jan Böhmermann for broadcasting a crude poem that allegedly insulted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in accordance with a German law on insulting foreign leaders, infringes on the fundamental right to freedom of expression, German PEN and PEN International said today.

'The decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel came after the Turkish Embassy lodged a formal request with the German foreign ministry to prosecute Böhmermann, after the comedian read a poem in a late-night programme screened on the German state broadcaster ZDF at the end of last month that accused president of Turkey of, among other things, “repressing minorities, kicking Kurds and slapping Christians”.

‘There has been some discussion about the vulgarity of Böhmermann´s mock defamatory poem. We trust in our judicial representatives to know that freedom of expression is not about taste or the quality of literature. It´s about freedom and civil rights,’ said Regula Venske, General Secretary, German PEN

‘As Josef Haslinger, president of German PEN, has pointed out, Jan Böhmermann´s action can be understood as a paradoxical intervention. By adding one defamatory cliché after the other, Böhmermann drew our attention to some obscure paragraph criminalising lèse-majesties in German criminal law. We call upon the German government to quickly proceed with its abolition.’

'Merkel made the decision today on whether Germany’s state prosecutor should start proceedings against Böhmermann, after Erdoğan pressed charges against the comedian. Insulting heads of state is illegal under an obscure section of Germany’s criminal code, which requires authorisation from the German government. If found guilty, Böhmermann could face up to five years in prison or – more likely – a fine.

'Merkel has indicated that the law will be repealed by 2018.

'President Erdoğan has made extensive resort to Turkey’s criminal defamation laws to silence critics and opponents, having lodged over 1800 personal insult suits since he became President in 2014.

'International human rights standards put a high value on uninhibited expression in the context of ‘public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions’. The Human Rights Committee, which oversees the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Germany is a state party, has made clear that the ‘mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties’. Human rights bodies have also pointed out that heads of state and public figures should tolerate a higher degree of criticism than ordinary citizens.

‘The test of a nation’s commitment to freedom of expression comes when its government has to decide if it should use an obscure law, which protects only one class of people (in this instance foreign heads of state), to prosecute the author of what is clearly a satirical poem. Germany has decided to do so because a foreign government – Turkey, which is hardly a beacon of freedom of expression, which has an appalling record in protecting free speech, and has prosecuted writers and journalists over the years – wants Germany to act the way Turkey itself would in similar circumstances,’ said Salil Tripathi, Chair of PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee.

‘The question is not whether Jan Böhmermann is a good poet, whether his work has aesthetic value or whether it was deeply offensive – that remains a matter of individual taste. The question is whether Germany – which has pledged to repeal the law by 2018 – should use the law as if it had no other choice. Robust democracies thrive on sharp debate and biting satire, even if it is in poor taste. Germany must act consistent with its own, European, and international standards of free speech and drop all charges against Böhmermann immediately.’

PEN International opposes the criminalisation of defamation in all cases, calling for defamation and insult to become civil offences. PEN also calls on the German authorities not to bring any charges against Böhmermann and to implement the decision to overturn the law criminalising the insult of foreign leaders as soon as possible.

Salil Tripathi, Chair of PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee told Sabrangindia, “‘The test of a nation’s commitment to freedom of expression comes when its government has to decide if it should use an obscure law, which protects only one class of people (in this instance foreign heads of state), to prosecute the author of what is clearly a satirical poem. Germany has decided to do so because a foreign government – Turkey, which is hardly a beacon of freedom of expression, which has an appalling record in protecting free speech, and has prosecuted writers and journalists over the years – wants Germany to act the way Turkey itself would in similar circumstances.’

‘The question is not whether Jan Böhmermann is a good poet, whether his work has aesthetic value or whether it was deeply offensive – that remains a matter of individual taste. The question is whether Germany – which has pledged to repeal the law by 2018 – should use the law as if it had no other choice. Robust democracies thrive on sharp debate and biting satire, even if it is in poor taste. Germany must act consistent with its own, European, and international standards of free speech and drop all charges against Böhmermann immediately".
 
Meanwhile, in a lighter vein, a satirist blog based in the United Kingdom commented that the “World stunned by revelation that Germany has a comedian!

The decision is also being criticized on account of the recently agreed refugee deal between Turkey and the EU has made the chancellor reliant on the whims of Turkey’s strongman leader. Merkel was one of the main drivers of the agreement, under which migrants arriving in Greece are now expected to be sent back to Turkey if they do not apply for asylum or their claim is rejected.

“Merkel is kowtowing to Turkey’s despot Erdoğan and sacrifices freedom of the German press,” said Sahra Wagenknecht, a senior politician for the German Left party said in a statement to the media.

The chairman of the Turkish Community in Germany, Gökay Sofuoglu, also criticised the German government’s decision, saying: “I would have wished the chancellor had not allowed the trial to go ahead.” Erdoğan had also filed a personal lawsuit against Böhmermann, and Sofuoglu said Merkel should have waited for the outcome of that trial first.

A demonstration in front of the Turkish embassy in Berlin, scheduled for Friday afternoon, has been banned by Berlin police. Activists had announced that they were planning to read out Böhmermann’s poem in front of the embassy.

Böhmermann himself has not commented on the affair since the programme was aired last Thursday. Cologne authorities have confirmed that the comedian and his family are under police protection.

Sabrangindia has been tracking the developments in Turkey that have seriously endangered personal freedoms.

References
1. ‘Statement of Concern by Professors of Turkish Studies and Ottoman History Regarding Diminishing Academic Freedoms in Turkey’

2. Turkey: Crushing the dissenting voice

3. Turkey: Mind numbing violence in a country where even “insulting President” is a crime

The post Germany Bows to Turkish Pressure: Allows Prosecution of Comedian who Mocked Erdogan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was to avoid the appointment of the Lok Ayukta that the Modi Government had then hurriedly appointed the M. B. Shah Commission.
 
Foruteen allegations for which inquiry was entrusted to M. B. Shah Inquiry Commission include:
— Allocation of lands at much lower or throw away price, to industrialists including Adani, Ruiya and Ratan Tata,
— Scam related to  fodder for animals
— Scam related to  fortified flour issued to Anganwadis
— Scam related to the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation,
— Scam related to the  ‘Sujalam Sufalam’ Schemes. 

“If the inquiry was entrusted to inquire into these scandals then do not the 6 crore people of Gujarat have a right to know about factual position?
 
“The Gujarat Government in its aforesaid Notification stated that “when strong opinion is emerging in the country against corruption in public life then, in the public interest of the people of Gujarat it is necessary for them, to know as to whether there is some substance in these allegations… it is necessary to bring to the notice of the people of Gujarat as to what is factual position in respect of each of the above allegation..”.
 
“In spite of such clear statements pronounced at the time of appointing the Inquiry Commission, Modi Government and Anandiben Government of Gujarat have indeed maintained uncanny and ungraceful secrecy over this Report.
 
“The Modi Government has played the trick of hiding from public, the report that was obtained from the Inquiry Commission which was appointed for making facts known to the public in the larger interest of the people and same game plan is being resorted or replicated by Anandiben Govt. also. In this way, the State Government is violating constitutional protocol and 6 crore citizens of Gujarat are being kept in the dark. The State Government ought to table the Report of the Inquiry Commission upon receiving it but even after lapse of 8 sessions of Legislative Assembly, it has not been presented in the Assembly. Not only that, even the Governor has been kept in the dark by Modi and Anandiben Governments.
 
“In the public interest and for the sake transparency, State Government should make public this Report so as to keep the people informed as to what M.B. Shah Commission, reports on the 14 allegations of corruption. By not making public this Report, the State Government has committed a breach of public trust and thoroughly nullified principles of transparency and answerability or accountability, which form the basis of Indian Democracy.
 
“The Interim Report of M. B. Shah Commission was handed over to the Gujarat Government. on September 27, 2012. Initially this Commission had been asked to submit its Report by March 31, 2012 but the Commission did so about six months past the deadline.
 
“Thereafter, final report was handed over to the State Government by the Commission on November 6, 2013. The Interim Report was placed in the meeting of the cabinet of Gujarat State ministers and the same was approved in the cabinet meeting. Thereafter, on the same day itself, an announcement was made by Jaynarayan Vyas, as the spokesman of the Government, that M. B. Shah Commission has given ‘clean chit’ to the then Modi Government and that the Government had not indulged in any corruption at all.
 
“Here, it is worth noting that the day on which announcement was to be made on coming into force of code of conduct of assembly elections on the same day itself, announcement was made of having been given this clean chit. This is nothing short of cheating of the public at large. Until this date, Government has neither given this Report before the media nor even tabled it in the Legislative Assembly.
 
“Thus, the then Modi Government, by quoting out of context and by relying on this Report, had tried to en cash political gain prior to the Assembly polls and committed an act of cheating 6 crore people of Gujarat. No one knows as to whether final report of M. B. Shah Commission has been placed in the cabinet meeting of the Ministry of the State.
 
“When access to this Report was demanded through an application under the “Right to Information Act”, the Public Information Officer of General Administration Department of the State Government had responded, on July 3, 2013 that this Report is with the General Administration Department of the State Govt. Whereas, in the year 2013, the present Chief Minister, Anandiben Patel had informed in the Legislative Assembly that the said Report is lying with the Governor.
 
“When an inquiry was made under R.T.I. Act, with the office of the Governor, then the  Information Officer to the Governor had replied, on November 13, 2014 that this Report is not at all available with the Governor. Thus, the present Chief Minister, Anandiben uttered falsehoods on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and has also misled the Assembly. Moreover, it has been informed, in response to an application made under the R.T.I. Act, on November 14, 2014 that this Report has not even been received in the secretariat of the Legislative Assembly.
 
“As per Article 167 of the Constitution of India, responsibility lies with the Chief Minister that he should keep the Governor informed about administrative matters of the State but it appears that the then Chief Minister, Narendra Modi had not performed his duty of apprising the Governor about any information regarding this Report. The present Chief Minister is also following in the footsteps of the legacy of same grand vibrant and dynamic Gujarat !!!
 
“Thus, it clearly means that the Government is not willing to present M. B. Shah Commission Report in the Legislative Assembly nor does it want to give its copy to the people. If no corruption has been practiced in the Government. in the context of 14 different charges, then why is the Govt. so afraid of placing it before the Legislative Assembly?
“In our opinion, appointing an Inquiry Commission and thereafter not presenting its report before the public is a serious lapse (or crime) on the part of the Govt., since the expenditure of the Inquiry Commission is funded only by public money.
 
“Hence, in the interests of people of Gujarat, in the interests of democracy and transparency, we demand that the Report of M. B. Shah Commission should be tabled in the present session of the Legislative Assembly. “
 
References:
Push for Gujarat industry report; http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160309/jsp/nation/story_73593.jsp#.VuAdjX194_4

The post Make M.B. Shah Commission Report on Corruption in Gujarat public: Rights activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

UN body puts UK and Sweden on trial

The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has decided that Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily held” by a concert of powers – so how might this curious situation play out?

The Working Group finds that Assange is not only entitled to his freedom of movement, but that he has a right to compensation.

This is of course a major PR victory for Assange. And whatever one thinks of the underlying story, the UN Report is a fascinating analysis of the susceptibility of national criminal processes (including on extradition) to international legal review.

So far, there have been no winners in this unique diplomatic quagmire, which has been stagnant since Assange claimed diplomatic asylum in 2012. Both Sweden and the UK have nothing to gain by becoming vicariously liable for his “arbitrary detention”, even if only in the court of international public opinion. Expect angry voices on both sides to raise the matter at this year’s UN General Assembly.

In a sense, the finding of the UN panel is binding mostly as a matter of international moral authority. Should the UK and Sweden choose to ignore the ruling, it could compromise their ability to boldly denounce other perhaps more repressive states in the future – particularly on the basis of any finding by the same UN panel. Both states have appeared over the years at the UN as champions of human rights and dissident cases, and neither has any urge to lose that cachet.

So what now? Despite the chagrin of the British and Swedish governments, there are a few ways forward.

Breaking the deadlock

Swedish officers could visit the Ecuadorian embassy to question Assange and take depositions. Maybe even an extraterritorial trial by an extraordinary Swedish court within the embassy can be arranged. Nothing is impossible in the world of diplomacy.

Assange’s lawyers have urged the charges to be dropped, although this is unlikely to happen before he is formally questioned. Either way, keeping him under what’s now deemed to be “arbitrary constructive detention” will only increase his political martyrdom.

The continuance of diplomatic asylum within the territory of a state hostile towards the accused is always very tricky. The course of events and end game scenarios tend towards the bizarre. US marines blasted hard rock music at deafening levels to flush Manuel Noriega out of the Vatican’s embassy in Panama. Peruvian politician Haya De la Torre was holed up in an embassy for at least three years while Colombia and Peru fought over the matter at the International Court of Justice.

And then there was Umaru Dikko. Dikko, a Nigerian politician who fled a huge corruption investigation at home in 1984, was kidnapped on the streets of London. He was then drugged and crated in what was described as “diplomatic baggage” for export back to Nigeria, accompanied by Israeli agents and doctors tasked with keeping him alive in the crate.It need not come to that. The panel’s conclusions could possibly inject some pragmatism into the whole affair. Assange could capitulate and walk out into the waiting hands of the UK law and be extradited, or perhaps an English court could refuse to allow his extradition based on the UN ruling. Both Assange and Ecuador could drop their claims for compensation for housing and inconveniences.

Now that the decision, however contentious, has been committed to paper and made public, all the concerned parties might finally have an impetus to find the necessary political will to reach some workable compromise to melt this excruciatingly slow-moving diplomatic glacier.

In the meantime, perhaps agents at British, Swedish and American airports should watch out for unusually large diplomatic baggage.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation

The post Julian Assange verdict: how this curious episode might be brought to an end appeared first on SabrangIndia.