The Extradition of Assange – A study of the ECtHR's case law on Article 3 regarding the extradition of persons with mental illness, in conjunction with diplomatic assurances

Sammanfattning: On January 4, 2021, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled the anticipated extradition of Julian Assange to the United States of America unlawful, stating it would be oppressive towards Mr. Assange’s mental health. The ruling was later overturned by the High Court of Justice, as the United States had provided diplomatic assurances to the United Kingdom regarding the treatment of Mr. Assange in the event of his extradition. The aim of this thesis has been to examine the case of USA v. Assange, by applying relevant ECtHR case law pertaining to the event of extraditing persons with mental illness, and analyzing whether an extradition of Assange potentially would violate Article 3 ECHR. Furthermore, this thesis has also aimed to evaluate the role of diplomatic assurances in extradition procedures, specifically examining the assurances provided by the US government in the case of Assange. The legal dogmatic method has been used to determine lex lata in cases of mental illness and extradition in relation to Article 3 ECHR. Noting the difficulties of using the legal dogmatic method while assessing the notion of diplomatic assurances which has evolved through inter-state relations and diplomatic practice, a method of description has also been consulted. This thesis has found it unclear whether an extradition of Assange would constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Assessing the threshold test laid down by the ECtHR’s case law in Paposhvili v. Belgium, it seems rather unlikely that a violation would be found. This conclusion was strengthened by the Court’s pragmatic approach to diplomatic assurances, and the Court’s prior acceptance of assurances provided by the USA. However, considering the ambiguity of potential suicide risk in relation to the Paposhvili criterion of “significant reduction in life expectancy”, the Court could reach a different conclusion, finding a violation of Article 3 after all.