ONGOING CASE: PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY ACCUSED OF SPYING ON JULIAN ASSANGE

Spanish private security company accused of spying on Julian Assange while he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He remained there from June 2012 until April 2019. His primary motivation was to evade extradition to Sweden, where he faced sexual assault allegations. Assange feared that once in Swedish custody, he could be further extradited to the United States. This concern stemmed from WikiLeaks’ publication of classified US documents, which exposed Assange to prosecution in the US.

Undercover Global S.L., Spanish private security company provided security for Assange while he hid inside the Ecuadorian Embassy premises. Assange, however, began being increasingly more wary about Global S.L. services, fearing that he was being spied on. A day before his arrest Assange complained and alleged Undercover Global S.L. to have carried out extensive spying against him. The Ecuadorian Embassy revoked his asylum on 11 April 2019.

The court documents filed by Assange alleged that Undercover Global S.L provided the CIA with audio and video meeting recordings of Assange with his lawyers and inner circle. These acts committed by the private security company violate privacy laws, legal privileges and specific immunities diplomatic buildings benefit from as stipulated under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Key words: sexual abuse, privacy laws, immunity, legal privilege

Background

Australian born Julian Assange is an acclaimed editor and founder of media company WikiLeaks. In 2010, WikiLeaks released footage showcasing United States soldiers opening fire on Iraqi civilians as well as a compilation of leaked documents by Chelsea Manning coined the Afghan War Diary by WikiLeaks. Following these leaks and other ensuing factors which the United States viewed as a threat to their national security, investigations on Assange and WikiLeaks began. That same year, Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant accusing Assange of rape and sexual assault. In March 2018, the United States filed an indictment against Assange.

For the next 14 years, Assange would face a long and arduous legal battle. While in detention in the United Kingdom, Assange denied Swedish authorities’ allegations and instead held that such claims were part of a plan to extradite him to the United States for prosecution on the basis of the WikiLeaks disclosures. In 2012, Ecuadorian then-president, Rafael Correa granted asylum to Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after 2 months of taking refuge. Assange was then was given Ecuadorian citizenship.

Once Lenin Moreno was elected president of Ecuador in May 2017, Assange experienced a turn of events. He no longer had access to internet connection and outside visitors were prohibited from entering the premises to visit him. His lawyers, however, were still allowed to continue their activities and visit Assange. Under the decision of President Moreno, Assange was handed over to the British authorities after having been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years. Assange was arrested by United Kingdom police officers and was incarcerated for five years. Throughout his time in the British prison, Assange continued to fight against attempts to extradite him to the United States.

The Incidents

Security guards were employed by Undercover Global S.L in Puerto Real. It is a Spanish security company that is based in the province of Cádiz. The National Intelligence Secretariat funded the private security services with a budget of $5 million. A day before Assange’s arrest, WikiLeaks claimed that it had identified a “major spying operation” against Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy premises. The security firm Undercover Global S.L., responsible for safeguarding the diplomatic premises from 2012 to 2018, allegedly directed its personnel to gather extensive intelligence on Assange on information about his legal representatives and associates.

According to the Acting director of University of New South Wales’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Under Cover S.L “set up a surveillance operation inside the Ecuadorian embassy: microphone, video cameras and eventually live-streaming, and it seems that everything was monitored, including lawyer-client meetings, and including the personal technical equipment of individuals who might be visiting Julian Assange at the embassy”. Intelligence was then likely provided to the US authorities and the CIA.

Sworn witness statements submitted to the Spanish court reportedly contained evidence of surveillance activities. These statements allegedly indicate that a lengthy seven-hour consultation between Assange and his legal counsel on Sunday, June 19, 2016, was subject to audio recording. Furthermore, witness testimony mentioned Assange’s name, claiming that data from his iPad, which had to remain outside the meeting room, was allegedly copied and subsequently transmitted to US officials.

Investigations and Legal Aspects

Assange filed a criminal complaint and accused Undercover Global S.L., director, David Morales and the private security company of privacy offenses involving “violations of his privacy and the secrecy of his client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery and money laundering”.

Evidence showed Morales expressed verbal and written statements suggesting that even though the company was contracted by the government of then-Ecuadorian President Correa, he was simultaneously involved with the Americans, acting in a two-fold manner.

Since then, Spain’s High Court began an investigation on Morales as well on the basis of alleged unlawful activities of his company. Furthermore, a lawsuit was brought by four Americans who visited Assange against the CIA in the United States Federal Court in 2023 on the basis that their privacy rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct states that Member and Affiliate Companies will comply, and will require their Personnel to comply, with applicable law which may include international humanitarian law, and human rights law as imposed upon them by applicable national law, as well as all other applicable international and national law (paragraph 21 of the Code).

Member and Affiliate Companies will exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with the law and with the principles contained in this Code, and will respect the human rights of persons they come into contact with, including, the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly and against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy or deprivation of property (paragraph 21 of the Code).

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, responsible and continue to respect the rule of law.

Impact

In November 2019, however, the Swedish case against Assange on allegations of rape and sexual assault was dropped. Authorities justified the decision by saying that substantial time had passed since the offence. Fast forward to June 24, 2024, Assange was released from prison and granted bail by the High Court in London after pleading guilty to one count of breaching the espionage law. This agreement was reached through tedious diplomatic dialogue led by Australia. Days after his release, the WikiLeaks founder appeared in court at Saipan (US Pacific territory) “where he will be sentenced to 62 months of the time already served”.

Discussion

How can private security companies use technology in a responsible manner?

What are the human rights which have allegedly been breached in this case?

What legal and ethical considerations arise from surveillance activities conducted by private security companies?

Sources

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

Disclaimer

As per the Disclaimer on the homepage, neither the International Code of Conduct Association nor any authors can be identified with any opinions expressed in the text of or sources included in The International Code of Conduct Case Map.