Ecuador's
Embassy - and All Embassies - are Off Limits to British Police (Hoy,
Ecuador)
"The Vienna
Convention explicitly states that police and local security forces cannot enter
a diplomatic mission without authorization from the head of the mission. ... It
is also to be hoped that the human rights and freedom of speech that the Ecuador government
is invoking with respect to asylum matters, will without restriction be just as
assiduously respected in this country."
Before announcing the government's decision to grant
diplomatic asylum to Julian Assange, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño rejected Great Britain’s threat of revoking the
diplomatic status of the Embassy of Ecuador in London, which would allow police
to access the building. The rejection is a just one, as it is in defense of the
principle of the inviolability of diplomatic missions and grounds.
Posted by Worldmeets.US
There is no point invoking domestic law, as Great Britain
has done, as a way of arguing for an eventual right to enter the Embassy of
Ecuador in that country. The Vienna Convention explicitly states that police
and local security forces cannot enter a diplomatic mission without authorization
from the head of the mission.
It is therefore unacceptable to wave around a domestic
regulation the application of which would infringe on a principle enshrined not
only by legal tradition, but by international treaty: that of the inviolability
of diplomatic missions and their grounds.
The granting of asylum to Assange was widely expected, as
was the British refusal to grant safe conduct. One can point out inconsistencies
and weaknesses in certain accusations against Great Britain, Sweden and the
United States in the 11 points highlighted by Foreign Minister Patiño for having granted asylum to Assange. The fact that Assange
is a victim of political persecution can certainly be debated, given that Swedish
justice demands he be extradited to answer for alleged sex crimes. But it must
also be noted that that under the institution of asylum, it is the prerogative
of the asylum-granting country to decide the issue. This is justified by the
very nature of the institution of asylum.
Great Britain’s refusal to grant safe conduct generates an
impasse that will be difficult to resolve, the consequences of which for this
country should have been evaluated responsibly by the Ecuadorian government .
It is to be hoped that the human rights and freedom of
speech that the government is invoking with respect to asylum matters, will without
restriction be just as assiduously respected in this country.
