Chancellor José Valencia confirms that Julian Assange maintains the status of asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London and prefers not to refer to the information he sent about the asylum process to Assemblywoman Paola Vintimilla. It reiterates that the procedure to qualify it as reserved was not complied with, but neither does it say that it is being analyzed to make it public.
In the response to Assemblywoman Paola Vintimilla, you account for two ministerial agreements in which Julian Assange is given the status of “adviser” at the embassies of Ecuador in London and Moscow. This coincides with the report by The Guardian that indicated that there was a plan to move it to Russia. What were the reasons for these two ministries?
I could not enter to analyze the content of that information because the control task belongs to the Assembly. I would not pronounce on the content of that information that you allude to. About the report … they are journalistic sources and that is still a field that is outside of me to evaluate.
But these two offices exist, they are official documents … Can you confirm their existence?
I have no idea what are the reasons that led to these decisions … I could not speak about it. Likewise, they are documents that we transfer to an assembly member according to the law and it is not up to us to evaluate.
You, in the same letter, respond that the information about the asylum was declared as reserved, but also indicates that the procedure for this was not complied with. Why keep as reserved something that did not comply with the procedure to be it?
Again, I just expressed facts. One fact is that there is a procedure that establishes the Organic Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information (Lotaip) so that a documentation is declared as reserved, we do not find in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that this process has been followed.
But they will not do anything about it … analyze if the reservation is lifted?
… We cannot enter into actions … In public law, entities have to do only what the law requires and, in this case, what the law tells us is pass the information, and we pass.
Is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs doing something to bring that information to light, to be transparent?
It is up to us to do at the request of someone.
What is the matter of Assange and the United Kingdom?
… The key lies in a direct contact between the English authorities and Mr. Assange and his lawyers. They have to come to an understanding. Ecuador cannot do anything but encourage this to happen … Ecuador is the country that offers asylum, there is no mediation, unless the parties ask for it.
Clarify the status of Assange. He is Ecuadorian. Can an Ecuadorian be isolated in an embassy in Ecuador?
He has dual citizenship, he has not renounced his Australian nationality, Ecuador granted him asylum when he was Australian and the Asylum Convention does not establish that by acquiring another nationality that condition ends … the status of asylum continues in force.
But there is a letter from Assange in which the asylum is terminated …
He had presented that letter, if I am not mistaken last year and that is what I say from press reports, I am not referring to information that I cannot refer to … but the State is the one that sovereignly grants and withdraws asylum to a person, the granting of asylum or retirement does not depend on someone’s request. He continues to be isolated. If a person declines the asylum application, that is only specified if the State accepts the request or not. (I)
“The State is the one that, in a sovereign way, grants and withdraws the asylum to a person, the granting of the asylum or the retirement does not depend on the request of someone. He (Assange) continues to be isolated.”José Valencia, chancellor.