Below are what I regard as the key excerpts from the UN working group ruling in favor of Julian Assange.
The following excerpt from the ruling sums up the “argument” that Sweden made for its prosecutors refusing for years to move the “preliminary investigation” forward by coming to London to interview Assange:
In the case at hand, the Swedish prosecutor in charge of the preliminary investigation has determined that Mr. Assange’s personal presence is necessary for the investigation of the crimes of which he is suspected. The prosecutor has the best knowledge of the ongoing criminal investigation and is therefore best placed to determine the specific actions needed during the preliminary investigation.
Assange must be interviewed in Sweden. Why? Because the prosecutor says so and knows best.
It doesn’t take a law degree to identify that “argument” as a pitiful evasion. I was pleasantly surprised that the UN working group was totally unimpressed and said so. Given the rich states involved – and with the USA hovering in the background – that took courage. My emphasis in the following passage:
….there has been a substantial failure to exercise due diligence on the part of the concerned States with regard to the performance of the criminal administration, given the following factual elements: (1) in the case of Mr. Assange, after more than five years’ of time lapse, he is still left even before the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence; (2) despite that it is left to the initial choice of the Swedish prosecution as to what mode of investigation would best suit the purpose of criminal justice, the exercise and implementation of the investigation method should be conducted in compliance with the rule of proportionality, including undertaking to explore alternative ways of administering justice; (3) unlike other suspects in general whose whereabouts are either unknown or unidentifiable and whose spirit of cooperation is non-existent, Mr. Assange, while staying under constant and highly intrusive surveillance, has continued to express his willingness to participate in the criminal investigation; (4) as a consequence, his situation now has become both excessive and unnecessary. From a time perspective, it is worse than if he had appeared in Sweden for questioning and possible legal proceeding when first summoned to do so;
Incidentally, the extremely weak evidence against Assange was usefully documented in a UK High Court ruling that went against him (see paragraphs 74, 75, 76, and 93). Very easy to see why a Swedish prosecutor initially dismissed the case. That is why Assange was able to leave Sweden. Only UK corporate media editors and pundits could pretend to be fooled about what Sweden and the UK have been doing to Assange. As I wrote here, it is worth reviewing another case where the Sweden trampled the law in the most disgusting manner to collaborate with US foreign policy.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate