Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.
Sure, but that makes Sweden pretty much the only party in this game to be able to break the deadlock without endangering Assange's life: just fly your prosecutor to London and question Assange. Decide whether to raise charges or not.
If not, revoke the extradition request. Problem solved.
The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
Setting aside the flying around across borders, is that a normal way to treat rape cases? - to have some arbitrary individual privately talk with the accused in order to decide to dismiss the charges unilaterally? Does that meaningfully decide the facts of a case or have you proposed a one-man trial with no purpose other than dismissing the charge?
If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
> If so, why even fly anyone in? Just dismiss the charge if that is what you really intend to do.
By the same argument they could have him charged in absentia. It is just complete nonsense from the Swedish prosecutor to pretend as if that is not possible under Swedish law.
So why this circus? A formal charge much earlier on would have stripped a bunch of issues from the case. E.g. the fact there is no formal charge was a big issue during the extradition hearings.
But of course a formal charge would also mean that the prosecutor would have to make fairly public binding statements in front of a Swedish court, and provide wider discovery to Assange's lawyers. Perhaps she is not prepared to do that.
You have your facts wrong. There is no rape case - it's an alleged rape case. He's only wanted for a secondary questioning. There are no charges, so none can be dismissed. He's being extradited to Sweden for questioning only - at least that's the official story. They could easily do that in London as well.
Bringing charges works different in Sweden from in the US. In Sweden it is the starting point of the actual trial, and it relies on the secondary questioning having already taken place. There are no charges precisely because Assange's behavior is obstructing the phase where charges can be raised.
That certainly isn't the usual way to handle such cases, but this also isn't exactly the usual kind of situation.
You either have this deadlock continuing indefinitely with nobody getting justice, or Sweden takes the more pragmatic approach and questions Assange in London (by flying whatever people would've been questioning him in Sweden there).
> The current situation is probably costing each country involved more time and money per hour than the travel expenses for the questioning trip would be.
By now, I imagine they could be flown in by singing angels for every day of the questioning and it would still be cheaper than maintaining the current mess.
Everything makes sense, always. It just may be that you are looking at it the wrong way, or assuming the wrong motivations.
Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...