the Swedish prosecution process differs from that of the English common law. The Swedish process ordinarily begins with the second interview of the suspect; and the Belmarsh magistrate indicated that Sweden had clearly conveyed that Assange was not wanted in Sweden for mere interrogation but for prosecution. The Belmarsh hearings also established that Assange's Swedish lawyer had been unequivocably informed of this fact before Assange actually fled Sweden for the UK
The change in the Swedish prosecutors' stance regarding the interview was the result of a Swedish court order directing the prosecution to attempt to arrange the interview abroad, as the statutory deadlines for some prosecutions approached
At this point, we have: (1) Assange fleeing Sweden to avoid prosecution; (2) dishonest misrepresentations from his Swedish lawyers that he would return in several weeks for the second interview; (3) a protracted extradition suit in the UK courts, during which Assange agreed to released on bail subject to conditions with sureties; (4) repeated suits by Assange in the Swedish courts; (5) repeated losses by Assange at every level in the Swedish and UK courts; (6) a sudden abrogation of the bail condition to which he had agreed; and (7) a failure by Assange to pursue the next level of appeal in the EU courts
Assange had indeed been demanding that the Swedish authorities should conduct the second interview in the Ecuadorian embassy; and, as directed by the Swedish court, the Swedish prosecution has now been attempting for a year to arrange that, but since that interview would mark the beginning of the Swedish prosecution process, it is perhaps unsurprising that Assange's Ecuadorian allies are not actually interested in cooperating: the latest development, within the last few weeks, is that Ecuador has informed Sweden that the Swedes themselves may not conduct the interview but that the interview must be conducted by an Ecuadorian
The object here seems clear enough
= new reply since forum marked as read