 This is an extremely important issue that is of great importance far beyond the person of Julie Massange. I think this case has, although obviously every case like this has a personal aspect, and I'm sure that it also, Stella Morris after we'll speak to that as well. But I think we all have to be, to try to focus on the overall importance of this case. Myself, I was contacted by Julie Massange's lawyers in December, 2018. He was still at the Ecuadorian embassy and they asked me to intervene on his behalf and said that he's living conditions at the embassy amounted to cruel and grave and treatment. And I had this visceral reaction of, I'm not going to be manipulated by this narcissist and rapist and hacker and so on to my shame. I didn't know anything about this case, but somehow I emotionally felt I knew everything about Julie Massange. And I'm telling you this because it led me to not get engaged in the case for three months until his lawyers came back and said, we have rumors that his expulsion from the embassy is imminent. Could you please look into the case? And they sent me some medical expertise and opinions of independent medical experts that had visited him and some other materials. And only once I started to look in those pieces of evidence, I realized that there really wasn't any facts to back up this narrative that I had in my own mind. So I'm telling you all of this because I think that's the most important obstacle to having a clear 2020 vision, even before 2021 this year, on this case is that we're always looking at Julie Massange and because most of us don't know him personally, we're looking at a persona that has been created of him or for him or in his place, mainly in various media platforms and so on over the last 10 years. And I can assure you, I've investigated this case for two years, there is nothing to back up this narrative. So obviously I could speak here in very much detail to all aspects of the investigation, but I propose that I will then answer two questions if people want to know more specifically about specific aspects. But I'd like to focus on the state side of this because we're talking about a persecution and when someone is being prosecuted, we always look at the person, we're not looking at the prosecuting side. And I'm arguing that what's being done here is a prosecution that is not pursuing law and justice, but is pursuing political purposes. And therefore it is a persecution, it is not a prosecution. And all of this hinges on the good faith of the prosecuting states. And here I'm talking not only about the US and also speaking of the UK and speaking of Sweden and speaking of Ecuador. And in all of those four cases, states, in every single proceeding that had been led against Julian Assange or involving him, his procedural rights, I can assert that as an international lawyer have been systematically violated in each stage of each proceeding in each jurisdiction. And we're talking about a person, as we know, who's exposed evidence for war crimes. None of these crimes has ever been prosecuted. Already that disproves the good faith of those authorities because clearly those war crimes are much more serious than what Julian Assange could ever conceivably have been committed. None of this has been prosecuted, but he is being persecuted. He's not even a whistleblower who's had a duty of allegiance or of secrecy. He's a publicist, a journalist who has published evidence for serious crimes. Now, we can see, as I said, in the Swedish proceedings, clear violations of his procedural rights. I can speak to that in detail if you'd like. Ecuador has expelled him from the embassy without any new process, has taken his statehood away, his citizenship away without a new process. In the UK, proceeding, unfortunately, to my shock, and I'm a professor at the British University myself, I could see how his rights have been systematically violated. In the US, Julian Assange would not expect a fair trial either. The good faith of those states is also disproven by the way in which they engage with my mandate. I'm mandated by states to report two states about their compliance with their obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And when I reported to those four states that I had identified serious violations of human rights law in this case and that I asked for an investigation and for them to cooperate with my investigation, they refused to engage in a constructive dialogue altogether. And even my follow-up letters, my reports to the General Assembly in New York, my reports to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, nothing was able to achieve a conduct by these states that would have been compliant with their human rights obligations. I'm not saying that they needed necessarily to agree with my findings that Julian Assange had been exposed to psychological torture, but by treaty law, they're obliged to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation under the Convention Against Torture as soon as they have reasonable evidence to believe that the act of torture could have been committed. And for that it is sufficient that my mandate makes those, transmits those allegations. I didn't take those allegations somewhere from the press or obscure sources. I actually wanted to avoid any kind of politicization and went to visit Julian Assange in prison in May, 2019, just after his arrest, together with two very experienced experts, medical experts specialized in examining victims of torture. And they have worked in this for about 30 years. They have examined victims in the Balkan wars and the Middle East. I mean, they have no reason to seek publicity. You will have noticed in the last two years they have never appeared in the press. So they're not scandal seeking kind of people. They're very experienced independent medical experts. Both of them and myself, we all came to the conclusion that Julian Assange showed the symptoms that are typical for victims of psychological torture. And here we're talking about ill treatment that is comparable to a type of mobbing that we would know from our private lives or that everyone would be familiar with. It's a very common method of psychological torture because it doesn't leave physical traces but is extremely destructive to the human mind and emotional stability in the long term. And it has several components. It always includes a form of isolation, social isolation or physical isolation in Julian Assange's case. We progressively have both of those aspects. Then there is a threat scenario that is there that something bad could happen at any moment. And here we have the extradition to the US and all human rights organizations agree that conditions of detention for political detainees or let's say national security detainees in the US amount to inhumane and cruel treatment. And so we have the isolation of the threat scenario. We have the constant arbitrariness of official behavior. And here we're talking to his constant violations of his procedural rights. He doesn't get access to his lawyers. He doesn't get access to his very basic rights as a defendant, just to prepare his defense. He doesn't get access to his legal files. And so on top of this, we have this campaign of defamation where he is constantly being humiliated and ridiculed but he can't answer to those accusations in a way that protects his human rights. All of these elements you will find in a mobbing context and we know that mobbing can lead people to commit suicide. It's a very serious form of abuse although it doesn't leave immediate physical traces. So all of this I reported to those states and it has been confirmed by other independent medical doctors. We've had hundreds of doctors intervening internationally with the British government. We've had the European Parliament passing resolutions. We've had the International Bar Association protesting officially against the unfair trial that Julian Assange is getting. We've had the Amnesty International speaking out against his extradition. Even New York Times, the Guardian, who have been critical to some aspects of WikiLeaks work in the past have very clearly spoken out against the unjust treatment of Julian Assange. The working group on arbitrary detention of the United Nations years ago has decided that his confinement in the embassy is arbitrary. I have investigated this case. I have no personal stakes in this case. And I was even biased, I admit it, to my shame, biased against Julian Assange in the beginning. But once I looked at the fact, it was clear that this is not a prosecution, it is a persecution. Now let us not, and I will close on this last aspect, let us not be misled by the seemingly positive results of the judgment of 4th of January, which refuses extradition based on medical grounds. It's a slightly, or even a strongly misleading judgment because first the judgment goes all the way to confirm the U.S. indictment for espionage, which basically sets this precedent case that what Julian Assange has done, which is investigative journalism, is a crime under the espionage act. And not only that, but also under the British Official Secrets Act. So it also really concerns every single British citizen. They could be criminalized for exposing dirty secrets, if you allow me that term, of the government. And so they confirmed that narrative. They contrary to the will of British Parliament, they, the judge said that the exception for political offenses as sort of the prohibition of extradition for political offenses did not apply, although it is expressly in the treaty between the UK and the U.S. And so they confirmed this whole precedent case. And in the end, did an extraditem, not yet at least for medical reasons, because the prison conditions in the U.S. would be oppressive to in view of the mental health of Julian Assange. Now that's a little bit of a trap because in the appeals case now, obviously the only question the U.S. will appeal is that precise question on whether the conditions of detention are inhumane and whether they're acceptable to Julian Assange. And so now here they can make diplomatic assurances with regard to those conditions and thereby remove that obstacle fairly easily. And the whole appeals proceeding has now been reduced to that discussion. We're no longer discussing political offense. We're no longer discussing press freedom. We're no longer discussing war crimes. We're only discussing those assurances. And they can easily be given by the U.S. And afterwards, as we know, those assurances are not always respected in practice. So I think it's more of a maneuver to reduce and focus the appeals proceeding to something that's beneficial to the U.S. than that this is really about an expression of consideration of humanity on behalf of Julian Assange. And I can even prove that with a final point. If the judge considers that solitary confinement in the U.S. is inhumane and oppressive and would lead Julian Assange to commit suicide, then why does she send Julian Assange back to solitary confinement in the UK? Where there is no need and no legal basis to keep him in solitary confinement. He's not serving a sentence. He is only being kept there in confinement to assure his presence in case he should be extradited. So it's a preventative detention so he doesn't escape. But you don't need solitary confinement in Belmarsh for that where lawyers don't have access, family doesn't have access where he can't exercise his profession. He should be now in a house arrest context such as has been given to Augusto Pinochet when he was in extradition detention. He was held in a villa in house arrest and had all other liberties say for he couldn't leave the UK. And that's the only legitimate purpose for restricting Julian Assange's purpose. If ever we should consider that extradition proceeding legitimate in the first place. But if we do that, then he could at the most be lawfully kept in house arrest. So the fact that he's being kept in an expensive solitary confinement arrangement in Belmarsh proves that the authorities have other things in mind than just assure his presence for that trial.