. Swedish Q&A: do Assange’s claims on extradition stack up? |
| Crikey’s Cathy Alexander and Mark Klamberg from Stockholm University write: |
| EXTRADITION, JULIAN ASSANGE, SWEDEN |
| There’s been plenty of commentary in Australia and the UK about the likelihood and legality of Sweden extraditing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US, should it secure his extradition from the UK for questioning on s-xual misconduct allegations. So what do the Swedes say? Crikey puts some questions to Mark Klamberg, doctor in public international law at Stockholm University …Why can’t Swedish authorities go to London to question Assange?
Swedish authorities can ask for legal assistance from the UK, which would mean they could go to London to ask questions, subject to UK law. However, it is under the discretion of the prosecutor responsible for the case to determine whether she should ask for such assistance, or ask for surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Procedure. The Swedish prosecutor is arguing they need to have the interview in Sweden because they may need to do several interviews and cross-check with the victims. It is not generally the case that Swedish prosecutors travel to the preferred place of the suspect, i.e. it is not up to the suspect to dictate how an investigation should be carried out. Moreover, as indicated above, if Assange was in the custody of British authorities he could be subject to coercive measures (under UK law), but that is more difficult/impossible when he is in the embassy, i.e. the prosecution will not be able to control the interview to the same extent as they normally do. Would it be easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK? No, for several reasons. First, Sweden and the UK both have bilateral extradition treaties vis-a-vis the US. The UK is able to extradite people to the US under similar conditions as Sweden, and has done so. Second, the UK as well as Sweden are parties to the European Convention of Human Rights. Following the landmark judgment called Soering from 1989, both Sweden and UK are prohibited to extradite somebody who can be put on death row and/or be subjected to torture (which includes inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). Third, the Swedish extradition agreement with the US (you can read the 1961 agreement in Swedish or English here, and read the 1984 supplementary convention here) does not allow extradition when the offence is purely military or if the offence is a political offence. For example, espionage is a political crime and no extradition is possible for such charges. Fourth and finally, if Assange were to be extradited to Sweden and if the US then requested extradition from Sweden, such a request would have to be approved by Sweden as well as by the UK. This would require an approval by the Swedish Supreme Court and government. The government cannot approve extradition if it’s denied by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the rule of speciality and the regulations concerning a European Arrest Warrant, the decision to extradite Assange to Sweden for allegations concerning r-pe and s-xual misconduct is not enough, the UK Home Secretary has to make a second decision concerning the US charges (for example espionage), subject to UK law. As I understand it, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum, i.e. Ecuador is arguing that the US is seeking Assange for a political offence (espionage). Moreover, they fear that Assange will be subject to the death penalty and/or torture. As explained above, extradition from Sweden would for several reasons not be granted in such a case. It is theoretically possible that i) the US might charge Assange for an other (non-political) crime than espionage and that ii) the US would be willing to issue a guarantee that the death penalty will not be issued. The latter has happened before — see for example the aftermath of the Soering case. Could Sweden extradite Assange in such a case? The answer is yes provided that the UK also approves, but I have great difficulties to see what kind of non-political crime that would be. Is Sweden “US-friendly”, and would it be more likely to do the US’ wishes than the UK? In the diplomatic cables made available by WikiLeaks, the US embassy in Stockholm describes the current Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt as a “medium size dog with big dog attitude”, meaning someone who thinks he has more power and influence than he really has. Sweden has good relations to the US, probably close to or equivalent to US relations to the UK and Australia. However, Sweden as a country has a history of opposing some of the US military interventions abroad, for example the Iraq war in 2003 and the Vietnam war (our prime minister compared the 1972 bombing of Hanoi with the extermination of Jews at Treblinka, which was probably the low point of Swedish-US relations). In the context of the Assange case, many point to the rendition in 2001 of two Egyptians from Sweden to Egypt, apparently following a request from the CIA. The transport was also carried out by the same agency. It is perceived as one of the largest scandals in modern Swedish history. The UN Committee Against Torture issued a decision where it established that Sweden as a state had violated its obligations under the torture convention. The constitution committee of the parliament (Konstitutionsutskottet) found the government had violated Swedish law. The Swedish state compensated both of the men with 3 million krona (E350,000) each. At least one of them was granted permanent residence in Sweden (which he has applied for). |
| RELATED LINKSGillard on top in a week of wide and varied stories | Trying to remain civilized on the Assange allegations | Rundle: Assange as Poppins meets HR Pufnstuff |
Window Dresser's Arms, Pig & Whistle 
What amazes me is that so many seem to have the most intimate and minute details of what happened or not underneath the blankets of Assanga and his girl(s). One condom was supposed to have slipped off and yet another was found to be empty or waiting to be filled. It seems that a whole army of investigative journos must have been present underneath the bed, scrutinizing every sigh, every hump and movement, with all levels of moisture and liquids carefully measured and analysed.
LikeLike
Very icky indeed.
LikeLike
I’m suffering from Assange Fatigue, I’m absolutely Assanged out…
LikeLike
Me too.
LikeLike
There is no other jurisdiction in the world that has laws like the Swedes on this matter. I can’t speak to the issue of whether or not Assange forced the first woman to continue with the sex act after the condom broke. I wasn’t there and apparently no one else was so it’s “he said, she said.” In the second case, I can’t see howing having consensual sex without a condom can be construed after the event as rape. These are the matters at the heart of the Assange case.
My two bob’s worth; he had sex with the two woman in question. That’s not in doubt. The condom broke with the first and a night or two later he didn’t wear one. Some time later both woman went to the police to tell their storie, backing one another up; though their explanation as to how they met is unbelievable and the background of one of them makes her look like the standard CIA stooge from Cuba Division.
Given that at heart the USA is a fascist dictatorship with a revolving presidency, and they have long form in the area of extrajudicial rendition and bullying smaller nations when it suits them, I’d say his fears are well founded and all the polly speak from both sides of the Atlantic and Australia won’t change that. That we don’t believe the assurances from Carr et al illustrates just how removed we feel from those in the crypto fascist elites that make up the military industrial complex in the US and the governments of vassal states like Oz and Sweden..
This piece of prestidigital geopolitical whimsy, this theatre of dissembling and disinformation, is all of a part with the current chaotic times. We just don’t seem able to form any lasting consensus on any fundamental issue affecting our personal rights and freedoms. We seem more scared of the boogieman the commercial and political classes shout about daily than the slow erosion of the notion that it’s actually us who are in control. I figure the students in Paris in 68 had the right idea. Barricades and cobble stones to throw. Politicians eh? You can’t live with ’em and you can’t shoot ’em. Well not yet anyway, but you never know that day may be coming.
I guess that in the end there’s no government like no government.
LikeLike
Something out of a Bond movie might do the trick.
LikeLike
The concern I have is not so much with the legal procedure called extradition. That has to be argued in front of a competent legal authority.
The USA has a history of extralegal (or illegal) capture and transport of victims to places where they may be tortured or subjected to extra-legal punishments. Solitary imprisonment is torture.
Sweden has already (as admitted in the article) been complicit in such events.
The USA has already done this to two Australian citizens. They both have previous form in perpetrating such abuses.
Mr Assange is quite sensible in declining to throw himself into the clutches of the US eagle.
I think a powered hang-glider from the Embassy roof to a waiting vehicle and a dash to a diplomatic flight from the nearest airport to Quito is his best bet.
LikeLike