Al Mayadeen English

  • Ar
  • Es
  • x
Al Mayadeen English

Slogan

  • News
    • Politics
    • Economy
    • Sports
    • Arts&Culture
    • Health
    • Miscellaneous
    • Technology
    • Environment
  • Articles
    • Opinion
    • Analysis
    • Blog
    • Features
  • Videos
    • NewsFeed
    • Video Features
    • Explainers
    • TV
    • Digital Series
  • Infographs
  • In Pictures
  • • LIVE
News
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Sports
  • Arts&Culture
  • Health
  • Miscellaneous
  • Technology
  • Environment
Articles
  • Opinion
  • Analysis
  • Blog
  • Features
Videos
  • NewsFeed
  • Video Features
  • Explainers
  • TV
  • Digital Series
Infographs
In Pictures
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Asia-Pacific
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • MENA
  • Palestine
  • US & Canada
BREAKING
Araghchi to Grossi: These parties will bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions
Araghchi to Grossi: Iran will respond to any unlawful action by European countries or parties attempting to turn the Agency into a tool for achieving their objectives
Araghchi to Grossi: We urge the Agency to warn against the consequences of any political move against Iran
Araghchi to Grossi: We call on the Agency to highlight Iran’s full cooperation during the upcoming Board of Governors meeting next week
Araghchi to Grossi: We demand that the Agency reflect the facts in a manner that prevents certain parties from exploiting it to advance their political agendas
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi holds a phone call with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi
Trump envoy Witkoff has sent 'detailed and acceptable proposal' to Iran for nuclear deal; it's in their best interest to accept it: White House Press Secretary Leavitt
Hamas official says Witkoff's position toward group was 'unfair' and shows 'complete bias' to 'Israel'
Hamas official says it has considered Witkoff's proposal acceptable for negotiations, says 'Israel's' response was incompatible with what the group agreed on
Hamas official says group has not rejected Wikoff's proposal for Gaza ceasefire

Classified Documents Cast Doubt on U.S. Assurances for Assange

  • Richard Medhurst Richard Medhurst
  • Source: Al Mayadeen Net
  • 11 Dec 2021 17:19
  • 15 Shares
12 Min Read

When the U.S. says Assange can serve any potential sentence in Australia— that doesn’t really guarantee anything.

  • x
  • Classified Documents Cast Doubt on U.S. Assurances for Assange
    Classified Documents Cast Doubt on U.S. Assurances for Assange

I have covered Julian Assange's extradition battle since 2020. The United States is attempting to extradite the Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder after he published classified documents, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to diplomatic cables from the U.S. State Department.

In January, Judge Baraitser blocked Assange’s extradition on health grounds; she found U.S. prison conditions to be too oppressive, which could lead him to commit suicide. In October, the United States appealed this decision on five grounds.

This morning, I attended remotely as the High Court in London delivered its judgement, ruling in favor of the US. The United States was denied appeal on grounds pertaining to Assange’s health, but the Court accepted its diplomatic assurances.

The United States has offered a package of assurances which appear to say that Assange won’t face confinement at ADX Florence or under oppressive prison conditions, known as Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). They also say he could serve a potential sentence in his home country Australia.

The ruling issued today by the High Court was based on the premise that US assurances can be trusted. Classified documents that I obtained show this to be wholly untrue.

The case of David Mendoza Herrarte

In 2009, the United States extradited David Mendoza Herrarte from Spain to the United States for drug trafficking. The U.S. also provided diplomatic assurances for Mendoza— assurances which it broke, as documents show. Mendoza’s case was cited by Assange’s lawyers at the High Court as evidence that U.S. assurances cannot be trusted.

Mendoza is an American and Spanish national. He left the United States in 2006 and resettled in Spain after learning U.S. authorities were on to him. Two years later in June 2008, he was arrested by Spanish authorities under an international arrest warrant. The United States requested his extradition, however, because Mendoza was now living in Spain, married and with children, the Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) imposed three conditions on his extradition to the U.S.:

1.  Mendoza must serve any US-imposed sentence in Spain

2.  He cannot be given a life sentence or similar term of confinement (life sentences are forbidden in Spain)

3.  He cannot be tried for currency structuring (as this is not a crime in Spain)

  • Spanish National Court rulings from August and November 2008 stipulating the conditions of Mendoza’s extradition to the United States, and Spain’s right to impose conditions on extraditions under the U.S.-Spain Extradition Treaty
    Spanish National Court rulings from August and November 2008 stipulating the conditions of Mendoza’s extradition to the United States, and Spain’s right to impose conditions on extraditions under the U.S.-Spain Extradition Treaty

Spanish courts issued two rulings in August and November 2008, clearly stipulating these requirements, and reiterating that Spain did have the right to impose conditions on the extraditions of Spanish nationals to the U.S.

In January 2009, the United States Embassy in Madrid sent the following, unsolicited diplomatic assurance to the Spanish government.

  • Verbal note sent from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid to the Spanish government, containing diplomatic assurances regarding David Mendoza, January 2009
    Verbal note sent from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid to the Spanish government, containing diplomatic assurances regarding David Mendoza, January 2009

Note the wording. It says the U.S. does not object to Mendoza “making an application to serve his sentence in Spain”. This is clearly not the same as: we will allow Mendoza to return to serve his sentence in Spain, for example.

Regarding the life sentence, the diplomatic note said the U.S. “will not seek a sentence of life imprisonment”, however, that it “will do everything within its power, that Mendoza receives a determinate sentence of incarceration”.

A “determinate sentence of incarceration” could mean any number of years behind bars. The U.S. could impose a sentence of 200 years imprisonment, for example, and then claim it’s technically not a life sentence because it doesn't say “life”— not an unusual practice in the U.S.

The diplomatic note also listed all the charges brought against Mendoza— including the currency structuring charge, despite this being explicitly ruled out by the Spanish Court.

Related News

Colombia's Silk Road turn: Breaking the chains of US hegemony

The fulfillment of Trumps dreams

Mendoza and his attorney were alarmed by the ambiguity of the note. They took it to court, which resulted in a ruling, stipulating that the Spanish government and police must do everything within their power to make sure the U.S. respects the conditions of Mendoza’s extradition. The result was a contract called the “Acta de Entrega” or “Deed of Surrender”.

  • Classified Documents Cast Doubt on U.S. Assurances for Assange
    The original Acta de Entrega: a contract between Mendoza, the United States and Spain, stipulating that his extradition comply with the conditions imposed by the National Criminal Court. All three signatures are visible: the Spanish government’s, David Mendoza’s and the United States’ (represented by Kimberly Wise), April 2009

This Acta de Entrega (Deed of Surrender) was signed April 30, 2009, the day of Mendoza’s extradition. To avoid any misunderstanding the last sentence says: “signing those present as proof of agreement.” followed by three signatures: the Spanish government, David Mendoza, and Kimberly Wise.

  • Kimberly Wise, who signed the Acta de Entrega on behalf of the United States, can be seen working at the U.S. embassy in Madrid as recently as 2019
    Kimberly Wise, who signed the Acta de Entrega on behalf of the United States, can be seen working at the U.S. embassy in Madrid as recently as 2019

Kimberly Wise works at the U.S. embassy in Madrid; she signed this contract on behalf of the U.S. government, which clearly says David Mendoza is surrendered to the U.S. authorities “In accordance with what was previously stipulated by Section Two of the National Criminal Court”, i.e., the U.S. must allow Mendoza to serve his sentence in Spain, mustn’t give him a life sentence, nor try him for currency structuring.

  • Official English translation of the Acta de Entrega or “Deed of Surrender”: a contract between Spain, David Mendoza, and the United States.
    Official English translation of the Acta de Entrega or “Deed of Surrender”: a contract between Spain, David Mendoza, and the United States.

Mendoza was extradited to the U.S. in April 2009, and subsequently sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. When I interviewed Mendoza, he told me that during sentencing, he asked the court to respect the conditions of his extradition and send him back to Spain. The judge, Thomas Zilly, told Mendoza that he had no right to make any claims, because he wasn’t a signatory of the U.S.-Spain Extradition Treaty.

That might sound like a ridiculous statement because it is. Obviously, Mendoza isn’t a signatory—treaties are signed between countries, not natural persons. Nevertheless, this was the judge’s logic. Mendoza was told to go to prison and make a treaty transfer application from there. He did and waited seven months for a response. In July 2010 the Department of Justice wrote back, denying his request for a transfer to Spain.

  • Document from the US Department of Justice denying David Mendoza’s application, July 2010
    Document from the US Department of Justice denying David Mendoza’s application, July 2010

In total, Mendoza applied three times for treaty transfer to Spain, and each time his application was denied. The United States did this in violation of its diplomatic assurances and agreement with Spain.

After the first denial, Mendoza realized the US wasn’t going to give him any justice, so he decided to sue Spain. In 2014, Mendoza filed two lawsuits against Spain at the Spanish Supreme Court: the first for violating the conditions of his extradition, and the second for violating his human rights. Mendoza won both cases.

  • Spanish Supreme Court rules in Mendoza’s favor, December 2014
    Spanish Supreme Court rules in Mendoza’s favor, December 2014

The Spanish Supreme Court effectively threatened to suspend the U.S.-Spain Extradition Treaty. Mendoza believes this is when the U.S. finally began to feel some pressure.

At the same time, Mendoza was writing to judges, MPs, lawyers, and others all over Spain— anyone he could get to pay attention. A judge sympathetic to his case anonymously sent Mendoza a copy of the Acta de Entrega— the contract he signed together with Spain and the U.S. the day of his extradition, stipulating his return.

Mendoza had previously attempted to retrieve this document through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The U.S. refused to give it to him, saying it was classified, and that he wasn’t privy to diplomatic communications. Instead, they gave him a copy without his signature— essentially useless in court because he wouldn’t be able to sue the United States for breach of contract or non-compliance.

  • Under a FOIA request, Mendoza asked for a copy of the Acta de Entrega he signed (left). The U.S. denied his request, saying it was classified and that he was not privy to diplomatic communications. They instead gave him a copy without his signature (right)
    Under a FOIA request, Mendoza asked for a copy of the Acta de Entrega he signed (left). The U.S. denied his request, saying it was classified and that he was not privy to diplomatic communications. They instead gave him a copy without his signature (right)

Now that Mendoza finally had a copy, he went to civil court in the U.S. and sued the Department of Justice and Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder. Mendoza tells me this was so he could retrieve all the property the U.S. government took from him in seizures and forfeitures (around $14 million in various assets). At an arbitration hearing, Mendoza was originally promised that if he gave up a certain building in Tacoma, WA— itself worth millions— the U.S. wouldn’t oppose his treaty transfer. This proved to be untrue.

  • David Mendoza’s civil suit against the United States Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder for breaching the conditions of his extradition from Spain to the United States, March 2014
    David Mendoza’s civil suit against the United States Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder for breaching the conditions of his extradition from Spain to the United States, March 2014

I spoke with Alexey Tarasov, Mendoza’s lawyer in the U.S. who filed the suit against the DoJ. Tarasov recalls how U.S. prosecutors in Seattle phoned him up one day to say that if they dropped the civil suit, Mendoza could go back to Spain. Mendoza reluctantly accepted; he told me, “It’s the biggest regret of my life.”

Mendoza was extradited in 2009, but his transfer to Spain was only approved in 2015. At this point the U.S. had kept him for 6 years and 9 months in various prisons, violating its diplomatic assurances and contract with Spain. Only after suing both Spain and the United States was Mendoza finally allowed to return.

Back to Assange

In the case of Julian Assange, who's also been given similar diplomatic assurances: would he be as lucky as Mendoza? Mendoza tells me that’s highly unlikely.

For one, the diplomatic assurances don’t actually guarantee that Assange won't be placed in oppressive prison conditions (SAMs). They say Assange won’t be placed put in SAMs unless “in the event that, after entry of this assurance, he was to commit any future act that met the test for the imposition of a SAM.”

Mendoza told me this is not really an assurance, it’s an assurance with a back door. Once Assange is in the U.S., they could easily claim he did something that “meets the test for an imposition of a SAM”, put him in isolation, and say they never broke any promises. Just like the assurances they gave him, the ones for Assange are so vague, they’re hardly assuring at all.

When the U.S. says Assange can serve any potential sentence in Australia— that doesn’t really guarantee anything either. Australia must also accept the transfer in writing, as required under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. So far, it’s done no such thing, as I can attest to having covered the court proceedings.

Mendoza explained: Australia is a “Five Eyes” country. The US could simply to talk to Australia through backchannels and tell them not to take Assange—leaving him with no real guarantee that he could serve any US-imposed sentence in his home country.

Speaking to Mendoza following today’s judgement, he told me that if the U.S. violates its assurances and Assange tries contesting this in court, the courts will say that Assange is not a signatory of the UK-US Extradition Treaty and therefore has no claim, because he and the U.S. didn't sign anything together.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, could make a claim. Assange would have to pressure the United Kingdom to pressure the U.S.— just as Mendoza had to pressure Spain to pressure the U.S. How likely is it, however, that Assange could successfully lobby the British to pressure the Americans into upholding the conditions of his extradition?

When the lead prosecutor James Lewis said the U.S. “have never broken a diplomatic assurance, ever”, this is simply untrue, as the documents above show. Even if the United States did issue an explicit assurance never to put Assange in ADX Florence or in SAMs, and to do everything in its power to make sure he serves a sentence in Australia— could it be trusted? The United States did sign a very explicit contract with Spain in exchange for Mendoza and didn’t keep its word then.

Mendoza feels that these “assurances” are not really assurances, but a way for the United States to game the legal system, deceive foreign judges, then do as it pleases once Assange is in U.S. jurisdiction. He recalls the countless Spaniards, Mexicans, Colombians, and others he saw extradited to the U.S. in similar ways. Once in America, who could force the U.S. to uphold the conditions of Assange’s extradition, or anyone else’s for that matter? Mendoza added: “I’m a nobody. If the United States did that to me, what are they going to do to Julian Assange?”

I attended Assange’s bail hearing remotely in January. Despite winning the case two days earlier, his bail was denied. Prosecutors argued that because of his past behavior i.e., taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, that he couldn’t be trusted to show up to future court dates. (It’s highly contentious whether seeking political asylum— any given person’s right under international law— can be considered “bail jumping”). Nevertheless, the judge deemed Assange a flight risk because of his past behavior and denied him bail.

Today’s High Court ruling begs the question: if Assange was denied bail due to his past behavior, how can the Court reconcile the assurances offered by the United States with its history of violating them?

  • David Mendoza Herrarte with his two sons after being allowed to return to Spain from the U.S.
    David Mendoza Herrarte with his two sons after being allowed to return to Spain from the U.S.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Mayadeen’s editorial stance.
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Australia
  • Julian Assange
Richard Medhurst

Richard Medhurst

British Journalist

Most Read

All
Although the background information does not indicate direct US involvement, considering the broader geopolitical context, it is plausible that the US would have an indirect impact. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Zeinab El-Hajj)

Did 'Israel', US fight a proxy war with China in South Asia during the India-Pakistan escalation?

  • Feature
  • 19 May 2025
The two countries need to sit down and resolve the crisis with maturity, to consider carefully that they could be being manipulated to be easily dominated. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)

Algeria and Mali, divided and almost conquered

  • Opinion
  • 25 May 2025
Trump and Biden both pretended to be fighting Netanyahu

Trump and Biden both pretended to be fighting Netanyahu

  • Analysis
  • 28 May 2025
The spirit of Bandung: 70 years on

The spirit of Bandung: 70 years on

  • Opinion
  • 18 May 2025

Coverage

All
The Ummah's Martyrs

More from this writer

All
The prospect of the United States– a foreign government– imposing its laws on British soil to snatch a foreign journalist should scare anyone who is serious about press freedoms. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by A. Makki)

Why the US is trying to imprison Assange: Report from inside the Court

'Israel' destroys Gaza to control world’s most important shipping lane (Part II)

'Israel' destroys Gaza to control world’s most important shipping lane (Part II)

The hidden reasons behind the war on Gaza (Part I)

The hidden reasons behind the war on Gaza (Part I)

Al Mayadeen English

Al Mayadeen is an Arab Independent Media Satellite Channel.

All Rights Reserved

  • x
  • Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Authors
Android
iOS