viernes, 28 de febrero de 2014

THE MIRROR OF JULIAN ASSANGE : WIKILEAKS
CHAPTER V


ANOTHER CHANCE TO JULIAN ASSANGE
And
REASONABLE CAUSE
ALLEGATION OF FAILURE FOR DELIVERY

Sets a Chinese proverb that when two people exchange currencies, each gets a coin. But when people exchange ideas, both benefit by staying with two ideas each person and the possibility that a third idea arises.
Consequently , the next step is to exchange ideas from a major review as it is the magistrate Howard Riddle , who on October 8, 2012 on guarantees, he said, "the possibility that Mr. Assange has a defense of a cause reasonable basis for the claim of non-delivery can not be excluded . the same applies when a defendant apparently leak. "

THIS DEFENSE HAS TWO ELEMENTS: A) REASONABLE CAUSE;   B ) THE LACK OF DELIVERY .
AT POINT A) REASONABLE CAUSE IS PRESCRIPTION .

PRESCRIPTION, in turn has two aspects or faces , . . A. 1 - The first factor in the extinction of criminal liability in the criminal action in Sweden and A.2 - The second is the extinction of criminal responsibility sanction given in the judgment of the extradition hearing in London.

PRESCRIPTION into UK law and in other parts of the world , operates by the mere passage of time specified by the law for criminal liability is extinguished, provided it contains a reasonable cause for the claim of non-delivery .

In British law , Judge Howard Riddle said . " This also applies when a defendant allegedly leaking " This means that the penalties to enforce a judgment , as in this case , sanctions are executed, but when can not run for various reasons, also extinguished various legal forms , such as amnesty , pardon , or death of the condemned , and the simple passage of time specified by the law for criminal liability is extinguished.

In this regard, various laws in the world , agree that any terms or judicial deadline CAN NOT be eternal, in this case, the execution of judgments and criminal liability involving , extinguished by the mere passage of time indicated by the law , provided it contains a reasonable cause for the claim of non-delivery .

In Mexico for example , criminal liability is extinguished through the " PRESCRIPTION " . So in the case of criminal proceedings that should be exercised Attorney (Attorney General ) or its representative to prosecute the accused or in the case of the application of the penalties imposed in the judgment of a trial in both criminal liability extinguished through PRESCRIPTION .

What is PRESCRIPTION ? The prescription is enough for her staff and the mere passage of time specified by law .

How PRESCRIPTION operates ? The prescription will produce its effect , but not the alleged derogation will supply the acusado.Los Judges of the job in any case , as soon as they become aware of it, whatever the state of the process.

B. -) LACK OF DELIVERY DEADLINES AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES

" The same applies when a defendant allegedly leaking " says Riddle ie B ) THE FAILURE OF DELIVERY . . .
DELIVERY is a legal act of judicial procedure governed by agreements or internal procedural laws on the subject.
DELIVERY is a member of the International Judicial Jurisdiction subject to the provisions of the international treaties signed in reciprocal form between sovereign nations that contain lists of criminal offenses that authorize extradition .

The process of extradition is governed by PRINCIPLES which are divided into 4 main areas:
PRINCIPLES OF EXTRADITION
1 - From the crimes. :
2 - The person of the ( alleged ) offender. ;
3 - penalty . ;
. 4 - The Due Process .

OF CRIMINAL ACTS
AND TERMINATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN SWEDEN .

In Sweden, in the specific case of Julian Assange, the opera PRESCRIPTION for prosecution, according to news we have today , the Attorney General of Sweden has so far not exercised prosecution against Julian Assange. It appears that the Attorney General of Sweden for political reasons, has remained suspended the investigation of alleged offenses pending a situation that "promote the political treatment " to a purely judicial matter , evidenced by the fact that the Attorney General Sweden has waived the examination of the subject to keep " frozen " indefinitely without foundation , although the absolute disposal of Julian Assange to cooperate with the Swedish authorities, while in Stockholm for three weeks after it was made ​​public the facts and later in London , where, and from
 then until today ( after several years ) Julian Assange waited patiently for the Attorney General of Sweden proceeded to interrogate him.

Must insist that the attorney general of Sweden, also refused all voluntary cooperation deals that fit in the Protocol on Mutual Legal Assistance , such as the use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange, and in that circumstance is inappropriate to issue an order European arrest warrant against Julian Paul Assange because there is evidence of cooperation clarifies the case.

 On November 18, Attorney General of Sweden Marianne Ny issued a warrant for arrest against Julian Assange under the supposed "reasonable suspicion" of having committed the crimes of rape , sexual abuse and unlawful coercion in regard to Anna Ardin and Sophia Wilén

Marianne Ny says the order was necessary because it was impossible to arrange an interview with Julian Assange who at the time was devoted to IraqWarLogs release . No effort was made by Marianne Ny to arrange an interview . Björn Hurtig lawyer kept trying to arrange an interview after Julian Assange had gone to England and was free from work IraqWarLogs , all requests are denied without giving reasons.

The chief prosecutor Marianne Ny Sweden refused to give Julian Assange and his lawyers , information about the allegations against him in writing , in clear violation of what has Swedish Code Procedures ( RB 23:18 . ) addition to the flagrant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights ( Article 5) and the Constitution of the European Union on Human Rights.

The Swedish authorities never questioned , as was his duty according to Swedish law, never did, why?

If the Swedish authorities, at that time, had interviewed Julian Assange, the extradition FALLS . This is because the leitmotif of extradition trial was carried Julian Assange from London to Sweden " for questioning " . If the judicial examination is done, the extradition is without matter , ie , the extradition is without substance. Moreover, if he had shown , as was done during the extradition full cooperation for questioning by Julian Assange, both in Sweden and in London , the extradition processed in London should have been declared legally inadmissible .

In the end, the only real interest is the Swedish authorities POLITICAL INTEREST never been interested in investigating the criminal case of alleged violation to the detriment of two Swedish citizens. Only the Swedish authorities will never make public who have a political interest behind the alleged crimes committed by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange because of political persecution is an exception for delivery in the extradition treaty concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ecuador and most extradition treaties . Political persecution is an exception and a defense to the merits of the extradition proceedings in many countries and therefore acquittals are offered in favor of political persecution in the world. The origin of extradition will always be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions agreed in international treaty and constitutional or legal requirements , justifying the exceptional nature of the decision by proper foundation and motivation .

In Mexico the International Extradition Act provides in article 8 . "In any case the extradition of persons who may be subjected to political persecution of the requesting State shall be granted , or where the wanted person has been slave status in the country where the crime was committed. " Therefore, if there is evidence that Julian Assange is a political persecution , this condition must be met in your case as a reasonable cause for the defense of human rights.

However, this abandonment or " freezing" of the investigation by the Swedish authorities BENEFITS Julian Assange by the mere passage of time to assert in his defense Extinction of criminal liability through the prescription against the exercise of prosecution by the Attorney General of Sweden porlos rape, sexual abuse and unlawful coercion alleged injury of Anna Ardin and Sophia Wilén , processed by the Kingdom of Sweden VS- Julian Assange by the mere passage of time marked by Swedish law , but in this case, has a reasonable cause that is tHE REQUIREMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION .

On 18 November 2010, the chief prosecutor Marianne Ny Sweden issued a warrant for arrest against Julian Assange under the supposed "reasonable suspicion" of having committed the crimes of rape , sexual abuse and unlawful coercion in regard to Anna Ardin and Sophia Wilén

Marianne Ny says the order was necessary because it was impossible to arrange an interview with Julian Assange who at the time was devoted to IraqWarLogs release . No effort was made by Marianne Ny to arrange an interview .

The chief prosecutor Marianne Ny Sweden refused to give Julian Assange and his lawyers , information about the allegations against him in writing , in clear violation of what has Swedish Code Procedures ( RB 23:18 . ) addition to the flagrant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights ( Article 5) and the Constitution of the European Union on Human Rights.

The investigation is initiated for the second time in NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN . This means that currently have PASSED OVER THREE YEARS since the investigation began and you may already have operated in favor of Julian Assange Extinction of Criminal Liability , having operated in their favor against a Prescription prosecution for the crimes of rape , sexual abuse and unlawful coercion .

Of criminal events described , we can conclude that the principles of legality were not met - nullum crimen, NULLA POENA PRIOR SINE LEGE - indicating that should prevail the rule of law on extradition - NULLA traditional SINE LEGE -

In other words, a member of the International Judicial Jurisdiction subject to the provisions of international treaties signed in reciprocal form between sovereign nations that contain lists of criminal offenses that authorize extradition for DELIVERY appropriate, necessary.

Considering the principle of reciprocity is necessary for the event causing the extradition be an offense in the law of the requesting State and the requested State. The identity (crime ) to exist at the time there was the act for which extradition is requested . - Principle of double criminality -

In this case , extradition trial that promoted the Kingdom of Sweden against Julian Assange, the rule of law and due process are never respected , from the time the extradition treaty concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Sweden, does not contain the - PRINCIPLE oF DOUBLE CRIMINALITY - This means that never existed delitoal identity that existed when the act for which extradition is requested. -

Do not forget that the first EXTRADITION REQUEST with the sole intention of " questioning " in SWEDEN case - VS- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE , from the beginning was rejected by Scotland Yard, when out of the question that the appropriate way proportional and legal to ask a person for questioning in the UK is through the Mutual Legal Assistance Plan .

Therefore, the extradition request to not see what enacts the norm in United Kingdom of Great Britain. This is THE PROTOCOL OF MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE was rejected and subsequently admitted , once the request was " made ​​up " .

CONTRADICTION THAT VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS TO EQUAL PROTECTION .

This creates multiple problems PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND DUE PROCESS CONTRADICTION by the obvious violation of the universal principle of equality before the law . On the one hand , Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union rises to the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , and on the other hand, a Protocol , granted to Poland and the UK special treatment in the Treaty of Lisbon to see how NO binding Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case of internal affairs , bringing to its citizens defenseless in their relations international in the case of United Kingdom and Poland . This means that UK citizens are first class citizens and the rest of the world are citizens of second and third class ?

The origin of this violation of the principle of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW , arises when the Charter of Fundamental Rights that belonged to the Constitution of the European Union that was legally binding is REJECTED by countries like the United Kingdom and Poland. The UK, as one of the two countries with common law legal system in the European Union and also has not codified a Constitution , was against what was legally binding domestic law. The proposal of the German presidency to a single reference to it in a single article in the treaty amendment , which must be kept legally binding , was implemented . However, in an accompanying protocol , Poland and the United Kingdom obtained special treatment in these treaty provisions .

 The consequences of this state of inequality , abuse and rape are so severe that go beyond the original intent of the Treaty and reaches citizens anywhere in the world as in the present case and there comes a time that affects human rights Australian citizen Julian Assange, as demonstrated in the present disclosure.

The Contradiction Further muddying if we consider that SWEDEN, NO enters this situation EXCEPT by recognizing the Charter of Fundamental Rights and therefore SI is required to observe such legal binding on internal affairs and respect for human rights the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, which are outlined in the Charter of high Fundamental Rights the same legal value by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , therefore compliance and rigorous observation Lisbon Treaty. Treaty must promptly comply Sweden for being an integral part thereof .

This raises an interesting situation. On one hand, if it recognizes and accepts Sweden linkage to the Charter of Fundamental Rights elevated to the same legal value by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , thus fulfilling strict observance of the Treaty and Lisbon . On the other hand , the United Kingdom by a Protocol , gets special treatment in these provisions of the Lisbon Treaty , to be against what was legally binding domestic law.

Given this contradiction , the judgment in the extradition trial should have been declared inadmissible and in favor of the liberation of Julian Assange to be shown that United Kingdom of Great Britain gets special treatment in the Treaty of Lisbon, to be against what was legally binding domestic law.

The Lisbon Treaty Kingdom of Sweden accepted and promptly comply to be part of it and therefore had to be respected , the first REJECTION OF EXTRADITION REQUEST with the sole intention of " questioning " in the case SWEDEN - VS- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE , as already mentioned, from the beginning was rejected by Scotland Yard when it is beyond dispute that the appropriate legal means, proportionate and ask someone for questioning in the UK is through the Plan of legal Assistance mutual .

The inevitable questions arise : Why then a second application was accepted ? obviously bizarre and unlawful . The only answer that makes sense is that a second extradition request was accepted and a judgment was issued against Julian Assange for POLITICAL REASONS .

This is a spectrum where REASONS politcos not fit today. Today there is reasonable cause REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AN ALLEGATION OF NON-DELIVERY

However , deadlines for prescribing penalties and shall be continuous from the day following that on which the condemned escape the administration of justice, if sanctions are deprivation or restriction of liberty, and if they are not from the date of the judgment enforceable .

 Some laws like Mexico , extradition shall not be granted when :

I. The person sought has been acquitted , or when a pardon or amnesty has served the sentence relative to the offense which the request ;

II . Missing legitimate complaint , if under Mexican law the criminal offense requires that requirement ;

III . He prescribed action or penalty , under Mexican law or criminal law applicable in the requesting State , and when ...

IV. The offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic.

Political persecution is an exception for delivery in the extradition treaty concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ecuador that you should not discard their observation and compliance Political persecution is an exception and a defense the origin of the extradition proceedings in many countries and therefore acquittals are offered in favor of political persecution in the world. The origin of extradition will always be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions agreed in international treaty and constitutional or legal requirements , justifying the exceptional nature of the decision by proper foundation and motivation .

In Mexico the International Extradition Act provides in article 8 . "In any case the extradition of persons who may be subjected to political persecution of the requesting State shall be granted , or where the wanted person has been slave status in the country where the crime was committed. " This foundation of political persecution that wields the International Extradition Law is a common denominator in various legislations in countries with Western democracies , therefore, if it is shown that Julian Assange is a political persecution , must be addressed this condition in your case as a reasonable cause for the defense of human rights .

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN LONDON

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain , or any other country with modern democracy regime or in the Member States of the European Union , criminal investigations are not eternal and UK law sets deadlines for them to extinction of criminal liability through prescribing penalties. In the particular case of the judgment in the extradition trial in the city of Judges in Westminster, London promoted the Kingdom of Sweden against Julian Assange, PRESCRIPTION is running on the modalities and terms established by English law and is Chances are, right now , after more than a thousand days of non-delivery , prescription and had to be operated on the ability to exercise this right and obtain the freedom of Julian Assange. The deadlines for the prescription of prosecution are continuous , in the crime considers them with their arrangements , and include:

I. From the time the crime was consummated , if instantaneous;
II . From the day that the last act of execution was the appropriate action or omitted if the crime was in attempted;
III . From the day that the last act was committed , that the case of a continuing offense , and
IV. Since the cessation of the consummation at the ongoing crime .

       TERMS OF PRESCRIBING PENALTIES

The deadlines for the prescription of penalties shall be continuous and shall from the day following that on which the condemned escape the administration of justice, if sanctions are deprivation or restriction of liberty, and if they are not, since the date on which the judgment becomes executory .

Criminal liability is extinguished . Not allow a return to the days of darkness , for those seeking to burn green wood with Julian Assange in the middle of the square.


Julian Assange deserves this opportunity , because it is innocent of the charges against him , is a valuable person and that has proven to be part of the global heritage of freedom of expression.