. Swedish Q&A: do Assange’s   claims on extradition stack up?

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).

Read   the full story on our website