Julian Assange's supporters have described his ongoing incarceration as "punishment by process".
And once again, the WikiLeaks founder — whose physical and mental health has deteriorated during the five years he's spent inside Belmarsh Prison in London — has seen the legal process to appeal his extradition to the US drawn out even further.
While Assange has not run out of options in the UK justice system yet, Tuesday's decision means a political solution for Assange's situation is more pressing than ever.
And for the first time in a long time, it feels possible — more on that later.
On Tuesday, two of England's most senior judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Johnson of the High Court in London, considered the WikiLeaks founder to have a real prospect of success on three of the nine grounds he sought leave to appeal over.
The US wants to extradite the 52-year-old Australian, who faces 18 charges — including 17 relating to the Espionage Act — over the publication of classified US information including secret documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But first the judges want to give the US more time to offer assurances that if the Australian was to face a US court, he would be granted the kind of first amendment rights over freedom speech granted to any US citizen, and that he not be subjected to the death penalty if convicted.
If the US provides assurances around those points, there will be a further hearing on May 20 to assess those guarantees.
If the US fails to provide any assurances, leave to appeal to the High Court will be granted to Assange.
That would be a win for him, but it would entail further "punishment by process".
As Professor Don Rothwell from the Australian National University says, Assange would then "join a queue of others seeking to have their appeals heard and determined".
"It is doubtful whether these processes would be completed within six months, or possibly by the end of 2024," he said.
Loading...Then there is another potential delay in the offing.
Assange's legal team believes the US can't provide proper assurances that the death penalty won't be used and that he will be granted free speech protections.
"Amnesty International says that US diplomatic assurances are not worth the paper they're written on," Jennifer Robinson, from Assange's legal team, told a media conference in London after Tuesday's judgment was published.
"Even if we receive the assurances, we are not confident that we can rely on them."
If the US provides assurances, they will be challenged in the court by Assange's legal team. If that fails another appeal will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
Supporters of Assange wonder why it's taken so long for the British justice system to push the US to make these assurances.
"The court's decision today demonstrates just how flawed the US extradition request is," Ms Robinson said.
"We are five years into this process now, five years in which Julian Assange has been in prison here in the UK without conviction, on remand in relation to an extradition request that should never have been brought."
Assange's powerful advocate in Washington
The reality is that the political and diplomatic solution remains the best hope for Assange to be granted freedom in the short term.
Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Justice Department was considering whether, "to allow Julian Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information".
The report suggested Assange's lawyers had already had preliminary discussions about what a plea deal could look like.
In response to the article, Assange's US lawyer Barry Pollack said in a statement: "We have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
One thing is for sure: with former prime minister Kevin Rudd as Australia's ambassador to the US, Assange has as powerful an advocate he could hope for when it comes to striking a diplomatic deal.
Mr Rudd has long held the view that the WikiLeaks founder should not be extradited to the US for publishing state secrets.
In 2010, when foreign minister, Mr Rudd said the US government was to blame for the leak of diplomatic cables, not Assange.
In 2022, when the then-UK home secretary Priti Patel approved Assange's extradition to the US, Mr Rudd (who was not the ambassador at the time) said: "I disagree with this decision. I do not support Assange's actions and his reckless disregard for classified security information. But if Assange is guilty, then so too are the dozens of newspaper editors who happily published his material. Total hypocrisy."
As a long-term friend of Anthony Albanese, Mr Rudd will be wearing out the carpet in Washington trying to follow through on the prime minister's assertion "that it is time that this matter be brought to a close".
On the day this latest decision was handed down by the High Court in London, American journalist Evan Gershkovich had his pre-trial detention extended by three months by Russian authorities.
A Wall Street Journal reporter with an impeccable reputation, Gershkovich is accused by Russian authorities of spying — a charge he, his employer and the US government rejects.
This week marks the first anniversary of his arrest and there is no end in sight for his detention.
Like Assange, Gershkovich is being prosecuted for espionage. While their cases are different, human rights groups point out that the prosecution of Assange makes it difficult for the US to call for the release of journalists from the US, and other countries, held by authoritarian regimes.
A coalition of 21 groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, have called on the US to drop the charges against Assange.
In an open letter the groups stated: "The US prosecution of Assange undermines the country's ability to defend journalists against repression by authoritarian and other rights-abusing regimes abroad."
No doubt it will be an issue that Mr Rudd and others lobbying on behalf of Assange will be reminding their American allies of as the legal cases drag on.