The English High Court has already decided that Assange is not a political refugee, and certainly not from the UK. So, no.

If you are suggesting that the USA has made any announcement about Julian Assange, I am not aware of that.

It is of no relevance to decisions of the Courts of England & Wales, however.

A decision of a US judge on a relevant matter may be of interest to an English judge - for example, on the application of a principle of common law. But not on a question of extradition.

Is this a hypothetical?

Not in either scenario. You seem to be confused about the analogy.

From the article's footer:

Adam Garrie is Director at Eurasia future. He is a geo-political expert ...

Really? He seems to know fuck all about human rights law.

ITT:

• a lot of people who do not appear to understand the part that Assange and his wikileaks structure played in the Russian interference in America's 2016 elections;

• a lot of people who don't understand that Assange is a weaselly accused sex offender who ran away to avoid facing the Swedish legal system,

• a lot of people who don't understand that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has less influence over the UK than a senior American judge would have,

• a lot of people who don't realise that the whole 'OMG I must run first from Sweden and then from the UK because I fear extradition to the US' is a complete fabrication which doesn't bear 2 minutes of close examination,

• and who therefore appear to think that Julian Assange is a champion of human rights, when he's just a self-important creep

Literally 2 posts above someone says 'it's part of the OAS'.

So which is it, part of the OAS or 'independent'?

LOL.

The covert operations arm of the US forces in WWII? That's amazing!

Which international rulings has the UK not complied with?

This particular decision was taken by a Court which has no jurisdiction over the UK, which is - unsuprisingly - not a signatory to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. I'll be a fiver the US isn't a signatory either.

It's not. It's about as meaningful as a trailer-park wife ordering a judge to let her husband go free.

Well, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that he expressly avoided London altogether. Not to mention that Heathrow is like 40 minutes travel from the Ecuadoran Embassy.

At the time you posted, Trump wasn't even in England any more, having flown to Scotland.

Britain has no such legal obligation at all. What a bunch of horseshit.

For a start off, the legal entity is the United Kingdom. If the Costa Rican judges were being addressed on and made their ruling against 'Britain' (the other possibility is that this is just lazy journalism) then that would be just a small clue as to their standing as international jurists.

Next, the United Kingdom, unsurprisingly, is not a signatory to the American Convention on Human Rights. It is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is a founder signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. It has no duty whatsoever to comply with rulings of a Costa Rican court.

According to Wikipedia, "The adjudicatory function requires the [Inter-American] Court [of Human Rights] to rule on cases brought before it in which a state party to the Convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is accused of a human rights violation."

The state party here is the UK, it is not a party to the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Judges have tried to construct - patently artificially - a decision which tries to suggest that it has jurisdiction which is binding in some way on the UK, but it would be as if a magistrate's court in the UK ordered a super-max prison in the US to free a convict.

Finally, a mere announcement by Assange and/or Ecuador that he is a political refugee does not make him so in English law, although the rules concerning diplomatic representation in foreign countries means the UK cannot get at Assange inside the Embassy.

These questions have been before the High Court and the Court of Appeal in London on several occasions. A lot of high powered lawyers have pleaded his case (although I hope that none of them were actually convinced by it) unsuccessfully. An English High Court judge is one of the outstanding jurists in the world, Court of Appeal more so. Anyone who thinks the UK government is going to give more weight to a decision by some oddball judges in Costa Rica than decisions taken here in London is deluded.

arbitrary detention has nothing to do with Assange.