Swedes on the Assange case

Today Claes Borgstrom claimed that English lawyers had no business to be critical to the Swedish legal system as they didn't know the system. Of course they and others have the right to be critical and it is not only the average Swede that is concerned and does not understand the handling of the Assange case in Sweden. Associate Professor of Public International Law and former lawspeaker (title for president of the district court) Brita Sundeberg-Weitman has written an interesting article about the Assange case on Newsmill.se. It is written in Swedish so have a selected some paragraphs and translated into English so that you can see that it is not only international media and English lawyers that are concerned and critical to the prosecutor and Swedish legal justice.  

"The arrest of Assange causes serious questions about the Swedish legal justice.

...What is the status of the Swedish legal system?...Once Claes Borgstrom got involved the case has turned into a bizarre realityshow".
..."The past events raises many questions. How did Expressen find out about the arrest warrant issued by the emergency prosecutor before the chief prosecutor upheld it the day after? Marianne Ny now claims that the reason for an arrest and an arrest warrant is to ask Assange some questions about the suspicions, but why did it not happen while Assange was still in Sweden? Why decline his offers to be interviewed at the embassy in the UK or per videoconference, if she claims that she might not even have enough evidence for a trial? Why issue a European Arrest Warrant, with the costs involved in such, before Svea Hovratt had had time to try the district court's appeal of the arrest order? The chief prosecutor's actions in the case does not give the impression that she tried to minimize the damages that Assange has suffered, rather the opposite. She leaves the question of prosecution open after several months of "investigation". The handling of the case reminds me about the Minister of Justices' idea of sending brightly colored police envelopes to suspected sex buyers "so that the wife or neighbour finds out". And why does the president of the supreme court, Fredrik Wersall, former State Prosecutor, place himself as president in an arrest case where the prestige and future career of a chief prosecutor is so strongly involved?  

Which deliberations lies behind this statement made by Hovratten: "The causes for an arrest warrant justify the infringement or damage that the act will have on Julian Assange or for any other equivalent interest" ? The principle of proportion developed by the EU-court means that force used by authorities is prohibited if the results of the act can be achieved in a way that is less harmful to the individual....
The vice-president of the EU-commission for equality, human rights and citizenship, writes in a letter to Fair Trial International on November 19, 2010 "A particular priority is reaching agreement among Member States on incorporating a consistent proportionality check before an EAW is issued and ensuring all alternative options have been considered. (www.fairtrials.net)

If the purpose of Marianne Nys' arrest warrant, as she claims, is to hear Assange on the suspicions, it is obvious that it could have been achieved by using one of the options offered by Assange."

Some very interesting questions posed by an expert witin her field I would say, the questions are relevant and many of us laymen ask ourselves the same questions, why did Marianne Ny reopen the rape case and why did she not hear Assange while he was in Sweden and why did she leave the case open for four months?

In the view of Brita Sundberg's article this sounds like the classical case of a smear campaign with the sole aim to cause harm to Assange.

Post A Comment (comments are moderated before posted)


Follow Us

Facebook.pngspace.png twitter.pngspace.png rss2.png

Get the blog sent to your inbox by entering your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Showcase your Scandinavian business here