UN expert hails UK court decision allowing Julian Assange's appeal against his extradition

A UN expert on Wednesday hailed the decision of the High Court of Justice in London to allow the appeal of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange against his extradition to the US, calling it a "welcome relief."

However, Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, warned in a statement that "the case is not over yet."

"I welcome the High Court's decision to allow the case to proceed to a full appeal. This is a terribly complex case, but at the heart of it are issues around human rights and values we hold as a society and the protections afforded to those who disclose potential war crimes," Edwards said.

In a recent development, the court ruled that the US assurances were not sufficiently convincing, paving the way for a reexamination of Assange's appeal. Consequently, he will not be legally extraditable to the US to stand trial on 18 charges related to the Espionage Act of 1917 due to the alleged dissemination of classified information via WikiLeaks.

"The impact of this long-running legal saga has taken a heavy toll on Mr. Assange's health. I hope that relevant governments, including Mr. Assange's own country Australia, can come to an agreement, rather than proceed further with lengthy legal battles," she said.

Assange, who has been detained in a UK prison since 2019, faces extradition over allegations of leaking classified documents in 2010-2011.

The UK High Court, in a pivotal 2021 ruling, decreed that Assange should be extradited, dismissing assertions over his fragile mental state and the risks he might face in a US correctional facility.

Following the suit, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2022, while then-Home Secretary Priti Patel affirmed the extradition order.

In his latest bid for a reprieve, Assange is seeking authorization to scrutinize Patel's determination and challenge the initial 2021 court verdict.

A UK High Court ruling in March granted Assange the right to appeal his extradition to the US, deciding against the immediate implementation of the decision.