The box at the bottom is this is useful:
Julian Assange says UN ruling on arbitrary detention a ‘vindication’ - FT.com
"The formal opinion that Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained” is a bizarre and unconvincing document.
It is only an opinion — it is not a ruling or judgment — and so it has no legal effect as between the parties. The law stands just as it was before the document was published. This means that if Mr Assange leaves the Ecuadorean embassy in London he still faces arrest for breaching his bail, and extradition to Sweden to face a rape allegation.
The content of the report is extraordinary. The three members of the panel that formed the majority have concluded that Mr Assange’s predicament is “of such gravity as give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character”.
This is not correct.
Mr Assange is free to leave the embassy at any point. Once he leaves, he will be expected to comply with the law of the land.
Hiding from legal consequences is not arbitrary detention.
Mr Assange is only in this situation because he lost his challenge to the extradition request, with the benefit of lengthy appeals up to the UK Supreme Court. Few appellants in English legal history have been given as many opportunities to present their case. But he lost at each stage.
The report, however, is not unanimous. In a brief but powerful eight-paragraph dissent, the former war crimes prosecutor and distinguished academic Vladimir Tochilovsky deftly demolishes the majority’s reasoning.
He observes that “fugitives are often self-contained within the places where they evade arrest and detention”. His implicit disdain for his fellow panel members is stark.
David Allen Green writes the law and policy blog at FT.com "
