Prosecutor’s behaviour in ‘case’ Assange questions Swedish principle of prosecutor-neutrality

SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 1., No 12, 3 April 2015

Serious allegations: According to her respectable colleagues, prosecutor Ny would have already taken the decision to inculpate Julian Assange – before to first interrogating him, as required by law.

 

Introductory Note. 

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) is a non-profit, non-sponsored organization independent from government, government-financed institutions or corporations. One central aim expressed in our bylaws, is the reporting of institutional assaults on the human rights of individuals who have denounced war crimes, or exposed serious infringements to the civil liberties of the population. In this line of activities, SWEDHR has included the case of the founder of the organization WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, whose multiple exposures on war atrocities, for instance on the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation wars, [1] occasioned an on-going investigation by the U.S. government towards his indictment; [2] hence, with the corresponding risks of an extradition request to Sweden. In the last 15 years, Sweden has granted all such requests from the U.S. in those cases the requested prisoner was in Swedish custody or territory. [3] [4]
,

SWEDHR has, in agreement with Mr Dick Sundevall,  – a Swedish prize-winner journalist and author – [13] translated his article published in the web magazine Para§raph, “Åklagaren föregriper beslut avseende Assange” (“Prosecutor decides a priori on Assange”). [14]  Our translation kept the original subheadings as in the  Swedish version, as well as some images; other images added in the editing. 

The author presents in his investigation a well-documented set of data and facts. SWEDHR has had access to some complementary facts, let alone analyses, that may contribute to further reasonable explanation on those items. For this reason, and also in order to orient the reader in the context of multiple events that have occurred along this protracted process – and that have interacted with each other – our editor at Research & Report, Dr Armando Popa, decided to include a few complementary references, some of which are based in SWEDHR-members’s own published material. The content of these added references, and the interpretations therein, are of course not the responsibility of author Dick Sundevall, but of SWEDHR. 

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, SWEDHR chairman.

 assange14n-1-web

“Prosecutor’s behaviour in case Assange questions Swedish principle of prosecutor-neutrality”

By Dick Sundevall

 

Over four years have gone since Julian Assange was allegedly suspected of sex crimes in Sweden. So, let’s begin with a flashback-review about what has happened, not least taking a glance at the plenty of strange “coincidences” that have emerged across the investigation.

But let me first clarify that I support the undertaking for equality. I think it is obvious that pay for equal work it should be equal. And within my profession, I’d believe I am the journalist that has put in most comprehensive terms a criticism on the police’s low prioritization of domestic violence. That is, violence mainly perpetrated against women. My critical review below in this text, regarding some extreme manifestations of feminism, it should not be misunderstood as an acceptance of oppression against women, in any form. And I think, obviously, that if Assange would have committed any form of sex offence, he should of course be convicted of it, just like everyone else. With this clarification, I hope to avoid an unnecessary by-the-side discussion.

International rock star

Julian Assange came to Sweden on the 11 August 2010. He was then considered a worldwide celebrity, and was seen by millions of people around the world as a hero by his work in exposing war crimes committed by the U.S. His and WikiLeaks’ work also resulted in the exposure of America’s contemptuous view of other countries’ heads of state and ministers.

Assange gets an international rock-star welcome in Sweden. He was received with open arms at the major news outlets and he is on TV more or less every day. He pays tribute to the Swedish principle of transparency in public matters and he talks about establishing himself and WikiLeaks in Sweden.

America’s enemy

Undoubtedly, that must have worried some forces here [in Sweden], to put it mildly. By that time, he is one of U.S.’s number-one enemies. What he has done, which in Sweden is considered a major journalistic disclosure, it is seen in the U.S. as espionage and treason, and punishable by death or at least a very long prison sentence.

In Sweden there are many friends and defenders of whatever the US does. Some of them could be compared with the old Swedish pro-Soviet communists who defended whatever the Soviet Union did. These US-friends are often placed at a variety of high-level positions in the Swedish establishment. Reasonably, they see Assange’s plans of establish himself in Sweden as a major problem. However, at that point they cannot do anything about it.

Rape and Sexual Assault

A week after Assange’s arrival in Sweden, he will end being accused of rape and sexual assault against two women. To understand the various aspects in the process that took place then, one has to have clarity on the fact that those two women are not of the same status, neither social nor regarding their roles in society. I will name them A and S, respectively.

A is at the moment 30 years old and well established. She is a research student and works as press secretary to the Socialist Brotherhood movement. [15] And, among other things, she is engaged in a Cuban feminist group.

She is a key person in the organization of the seminar with Julian Assange August 14, 2010. And it is planned that Assange should stay in her apartment days before the seminar, while she was going to be away.

S is considerably younger. She works with simpler jobs such as temporary employee at the Natural History Museum, and, as events would later show, she is a bit of an intellectual groupie. In any case, regarding Julian Assange. I do not use the term intellectual groupie to belittle her. We have all been young and had idols. And departing from that, we have acted more or less immature. S is in this respect not unique or particularly reprehensible.

Against the backdrop above, let’s take a closer look to these ten odd “coincidences” that have occurred along this case.

Coincidence number one

A return home to his apartment where Assange lives on August 13, which is one day earlier than what she said. She goes out and eats with Assange and in the evening they have sex in her apartment, she tells at the interrogation. What they have again the next morning. And, as it is told in the police-investigation report, they also had it now and then during the next six days.

Later, A is going to claim that Assange, during the first night – that night between the 13 and 14 August – would have committed a sexual “assault” [övergrep] against her, by deliberately broken a condom and then ejaculating inside her.

But she did not say anything about this to anyone, neither on the 14 of August nor in the days thereafter. On the contrary, she says a few days later, according to a witness who gave evidence to the police:

“I was proud to get he world coolest man in bed, and that lives in my apartment.”

A week later, on the 21 of August, she says something completely different in a police interrogation. It is reproduced as follows:

A claims that she was feeling very bad after this occasion (the intercourse during the night of 13-14 August) when she and Assange had sex. Mainly because of concerns that she has been infected with HIV or another sexually transmitted disease.

On August 14, the planned seminar successfully takes place and A arranges various press contacts for Assange. After the seminar A organized for Assange a crayfish party at her home. Inferred from the witnesses’ testimonies, most of those who attended that party are active feminists. Being “feminist” a very broad concept, and since I do not want to generalize, I will first try to define more precisely to what kind of feminists those attending to the party do belong:

According to the protocols of the police interrogations with the people that were present at the party, several of those feminists did question that males should at all be present at the party – a party that in fact was organized for Julian Assange.

Coincidence number two

Friends of A say at the party that now they can take over the lodging for Assange, as it was planned from the beginning; this, because A had previously offered her apartment for Assange to stay only during the time she was away. But then A clarifies that Assange should continue to stay with her. Several of the witnesses that later were interviewed by the police, got the idea that A and Julian Assange were at that point something like a couple.

It has now gone one day after the alleged sexual assault and two o’clock in the night, when A sends this twitter, elated:

To seat outside at 2 am and hardly freezing, with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!

Coincidence number three

The next day, Sunday, on August 15, A participates in a meeting of the Pirate Party and WikiLeaks in her self-endowed role as press secretary for Assange. Why would she have that formal role? Reasonably, because she reckoned (two days after the alleged sexual assault) that Assange, who was here to seek work and residence permits, would be staying in Sweden for a long time.

Coincidence number four

On Monday 16 of August Assange meets the younger woman S, who has mingled among the participants at the seminar on the 14th, without A’s knowledge. It leads to sex between S and Assange at S’s home in Enköping.

First on Thursday 19 of August A did find out that S has also been Assange’s lover, in a phone call done by S to her, and in which S told what she has been through. By then Assange has been living at A’s apartment during six days, but after this conversation Assange is no longer welcome at A’s. So, he packs his things and moves from A’s the next morning.

On Friday [20 of August] A starts talking with friends on that Assange would have “raped” S., however S has not stated anything of the sort. 

Coincidence number five

S is worried that she may have been infected with HIV when she had sex with Assange, and asks A what she should do. A says that they could try, via the police, to get Assange doing a test. This is strange, and at the same time perhaps revealing about the whole story:

If they would have managed to get Assange to test himself, and if it had turned out that he was HIV-positive, there still remains the question whether S has been infected or not.

The obvious in a situation like this would rather have been that A explained to S that she should go and test herself, without taking a detour via asking that Assange should be tested. And A certainly knows that there are several places in Stockholm where one can quickly get such a test performed.

Coincidence number six

Later, during a police-interrogation, A was going to claim that, as she perceived it, Assange ripped a condom during one intercourse. But before, in her conversation with S about going to the police in order to get Assange to perform a HIV-test, A did not express any concern at all [of being infected] for her own part.

Coincidence number seven

When A takes S to [her suggested] police visit, it will be by coincidence that she choses a police station in Stockholm where a female friend of hers, a police officer, was just then on duty. [16] And it will be this police officer the one who registered the report done by A and S. It all ends with that Assange should be filed for rape and sexual molestation. Later, S clarified that she actually did not want to file against Assange.

Coincidence number eight

In the following days after A realized that Assange was having another lover alongside her, she erases three own Twitters that are linked to Assange and the crayfish party. She also asks the Pirate Party to retroactively erase her name on the press release of August 17, where she is said to be Julian Assange’s press secretary. And on the 21 of August A close down her blogs.

Coincidence number nine: The technical evidence

A tells in the police interrogation that she understood as if Assange, after they had intercourse for a while, pulled out and ripped the condom – and then continue the intercourse and ejaculate inside her. The police asked her if she has left the condom at home. She replies that she does not know but should check it out. A comebacks on it later and says that she found the condom, and gives it to the police. It is broken.

It’s been a while and it reasonable to think that A has cleaned properly after the crayfish party. Anyone who has had dinners with lobster or other seafood knows that one has to clean thoroughly to remove the strong smell that will result if anything rests of shellfish are left. But apparently, that condom survived the cleaning.

The National Laboratory of Forensics examines the condom, and concludes that the damage to the top of the condom indeed may indicate that it could have been torn. But – they did not find secretions from neither A nor from Assange anywhere on it. No secretions from his sperm, and none secretions at all.

Reasonably, this condom should this be one of the few in the world, perhaps the only condom, that have been used to implement a vaginal sexual intercourse with ejaculation, without leaving the slightest secretion from either party.

Coincidence number ten

By another coincidence A and S gets Claes Borgström as their plaintiff-counsel. [17] He’s a former ombudsman for equality, and notorious for his feminist engagement. This engagement has at times been taken to extremes, for instance when he tried to stop the Swedish participation in the World Cup 2006 on the grounds of the German government’s stance on the prostitution issue in Germany. [18]

By coincidence, at this time works on Borgström’s firm a woman who is prominent in an organization that helps women to escape from Sweden with their children – in cases when the court has ruled shared custody, or when the verdict has given the custody to the father. Hence, assisting to implementing child abduction.

A, however, fired Claes Borgström as her counsellor in 2013. The reason has not been known. It maybe because he made so many media-gambit around this matter; or perhaps because it proved that he does not belong to the same group of feminists than hers? Or because she believes that Borgström has become too discredited due to the Quick/Bergwall case? [19]

Sex crimes, or not?

I personally believe that sex crimes of all kinds are among the most heinous crimes in all categories. But I have been working on law-related matters for over 30 years and the experience-based conclusion I have is crystal clear: All reported sex crimes are not sex crimes.

Of course it is not so that a lots of women go often to the country’s police stations to falsely reporting men of sex offences ­– but it happens. Hence, every year a number of women get sentenced for these false reports. In some cases, they have confessed afterwards, in others not.

Swedish and international studies investigating the proportion of false reports among those claims vary in their results from a few per cent up to 75 per cent. Nevertheless, no study whatsoever has concluded that false reports of sex crimes would not exist.

Not infrequently it turns out that some of these false reports are about women feeling affronted by a man’s behaviour, but about behaviours that in fact are not illegal. He is simply showing in one way or another that she is not any longer the woman of his life, which she had still believed it.

The prosecution carousel

In the years that I worked with questions of law, I have met prosecutors, lawyers, judges and others in the different structures of the legal system, all to whom have deserve from my part a great trust. These do not constitute a majority in their respective professions but they are there. They are people with strong integrity and sense of justice. People who stand up for their ideal of justice and the rule of law, regardless of what is currently the politically correct and regardless of any pressure from different sectors.

One of these is the chief prosecutor Eva Finne. I have seen her and heard her in a variety of contexts over the years, and my confidence in her has deepened. She is widely respected and appreciated. More than one lawyer has uttered something like, “she is not someone you’d like to have at the opposite side; she is sharp”.

Consequently, Eva Finné has some times to take over complicated, sensitive investigations, from other prosecutors. Which was exactly what happened in the case of the accusations against Assange about alleged sex offences. The result was that Eva Finne, after she has reviewed the case, dismissed the arresting order about Assange, and wrote:

“I do not think there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”

A few days later she produced other statements, in which she also dismisses allegations of sexual molestation. She makes that clear in a communication from the prosecutor’s office: 

“The content of the interrogation does not give support to that any crime has been committed.

It then remained just a report on molestation, which is a fine-offence at the level of speeding driving. And that, besides, it has nothing to do with “sexual molestation.”

A cluster of coincidences

Then, Claes Borgström appeals the closure of the ‘case’, and this goes to Marianne Ny.

Marianne Ny reassumes the investigation, and after a time she issues an international arrest warrant on Assange. [20]

Does anyone believe that the various Prosecutor’s turns are a mere coincidence? Is there any one who do not believe that a struggle between different positions or angles is behind the scenes? Is any one believing that it is a coincidence that Assange was not interrogated a number of times when he was still in Sweden for five weeks after he was reported to the police? [21] Anyone who believes that Marianne Ny may act like this without having support from the top of the Prosecutor-system’s hierarchy? [22] [23] Anyone who believes that the management [of this case by the Swedish] from the side of prosecution is not grounded in the Ministry of Justice, in a major international political event like this? [23]

No action taken

Let us compare this case with another case that came at the prosecutor Marianne Ny’s unit. Of course the cases are not exactly the same, but they have many similarities. The main difference is that in this case a woman was actually infected with HIV. In the case of Assange have neither A nor S been infected with any sexually transmitted disease.

A woman has had a relationship with a man whom we can name N. She has previously tested for HIV in September 2007 and in May 2009. These tests have been negative, meaning, the tests have shown that she is not HIV-infected.

The sexual relationship with N runs from May to September 2009. She claims that during that time she had not any sexual relations with other people. N does not want to use condoms, so they have unprotected intercourse. In September that year she tested positive for HIV, resulting in that she files N for aggravated assault (dissemination of infection).

She further claims that she can prove her relationship with N through the situation that during that time she was staying at Hotel Shelter in Skärholmen, where there security cameras are posted. N must identify himself every time he visited her there, and his identity is then registered every time. She may additionally exhibit msn-discussions after their relationship, where N talks about their past relationship. Early in the investigation, she identifies N by name, country of birth, Swedish personal identity number and residential address.

There is in addition a person who is prepared to testify that when N was asked to be tested for HIV, N borrow his identity in order to perform the test – which resulted negative. According to the investigation, N is now assumed to be living abroad.

The police in Södertörn, Stockholm, dismissed the case. The case was appealed and it was assigned to the unit where Marianne Ny is chief prosecutor. On the 1 of February 2011, that office notifies that no changes shall be made regarding the previous decision [by the police in Södertörn]. Hence, no international warrant is issued, neither any other action is further taken.

The decision is signed by the chief prosecutor Magnus Bolin and Marianne Ny.

It could not be predicted

When some penetrate into the allegations against Julian Assange, at least in any case, one gets convinced that it is about two women who felt offended by Assange – and want to give back. But perhaps, primarily, they just want to humiliate Julian Assange, by using the police to impose on him a HIV test. A test that, if it came out, would have receive extensive media attention.

But A, let alone S, could not possibly predict the outcome of their police report. That it would result in a substantial prosecution-circus, amid big international-media attention, and finally landing in international big politics.

Extreme Feminists took over

Different groupings of extreme feminists, who obviously believe they have a right of veto on how sexual relationships should look like, and how sex can be undertaken, took the Assange case for using it themselves. [24] And with their narrow assessing on whether one or two sexual intercourse have or not gone according to the regulations they have on the matter, they took over the case in the media. Assange [Assange’s image] was rapidly turned from acclaimed “hero” to a simple “rapist”.

Good for America’s faithful friends

Most of the participants in these groups of extreme feminists probably have no warmer feelings for the United States, and even less for the CIA. At the contrary, it is rather so that many of them, perhaps the majority, would consider themselves to be politically to the left.

But nevertheless, they played in the hands of the Swedish faithful friends of the U.S. and CIA. For now got these friends something to put on; something to oppose to Assange’s plans. Something that could prevent that Assange and WikiLeaks would be able to establish a base for their operations in Sweden. And not least, something that could denigrate Assange and WikiLeaks.

Exactly what happened behind the scenes only time will permit us to know. Today we can only make some reasonable assumptions:

It is reasonable to assume that the issue has been ventilated in higher spheres of the legal system, where “loyalty to the state” is a prevailing stance. Both the Prosecutor-General and the Justice Department have likely been involved. Of course, not in a formal sense. Not in the fashion of formal meetings. Let alone meetings where a protocol would have been taken. That is not the proceeding in cases where the issues are utterly sensitive.

People book instead into lunches with each other and ventilate the question. Or take it over a coffee. There it is carefully put forward, most often indirectly, the wishes from the respective interlocutors’ bosses.

U.S. contacts

holder holding askIs there anyone who believes that there has not been an informal contact between people from the US Embassy and appropriately selected Swedes in such a major international political issue? [25] [25b] Appropriately chosen Swedes who have the necessary network of contacts?

[In picture at left, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder during his meeting with the Swedish Justice Minister Beatriz Ask. See Note 25 down below. Added by Swedhr]

Recently, it was revealed that Carl Bildt had previously reported continuously to his American “friends” on the internal deliberations at the Swedish government. Thus, the Americans knew what those government decisions would likely be, even before that the members of the parties integrating the government, and the Swedish people as a whole, have a clue about it. And let’s not forget that we live in a country where American CIA agents have been allowed to retrieve citizens at Bromma airport. Drugging them, put them on adult diapers, and then transporting them off to Egypt, to be tortured.

Sitting there he sits

Today, Assange remains in the embassy of Ecuador, ​​which stands for everything he and WikiLeaks opposes. Suspected of sex offences in Sweden. Isolated, while WikiLeaks breaks down. The CIA and the U.S. could not wish for a better development of this story. And the same goes for America’s faithful Swedish friends.

If Assange would have been extradited to the US, and if he was going to be sentenced there to a long prison punishment, the U.S. would have got huger problems, both at home and internationally.

Nevertheless, Julian Assange has been left tightly stuck there, inside the Ecuador’s embassy in London, as long as Marianne Ny and those who govern her wanted it that way. If prosecutors and police had done what we in Sweden often do in situations of this kind, went there and interrogated him, or interrogating him via video link, so would have this whole story been quickly investigated and resolved. Julian Assange has always made it clear that he is available for the hearings.

The result of one or more hearings would most likely be: “Crime not proven”. [26]

Since both the Svea Court of Appeal and the Swedish Supreme Court have now indicated that they have had enough of this passivity, it is obvious that the state representatives in the Swedish prosecution system are not willing to contribute with it.

The argument previously used by the prosecution, but that apparently does not apply anymore, has been that if they would be questioning Assange at the embassy, and decided that they want to press charges against him, they could not force him to leave the embassy. And so, it would be pointless to interrogate Assange.

AsangeThomas OlssonTVkamera

– It is a very strange argument, says Assange’s lawyer Thomas Olsson, pictured above. Because it means anticipating a decision that must be based on the information revealed during interrogation. If the prosecutor keeps herself objective in the investigation, which she shall do, these interrogations are the steps prescribed to take.

– Yes, this is the way it normally goes.

– Yes, and depending on what it would come out from those interrogations, the prosecutor must then decide whether the whole investigation shall be dismissed, or in part; and based on that decide whether to proceed to indictment [take the case to trial] or not.

– But this is not the way it has gone this case, is it?

– No, the prosecutor’s attitude toward this is rather giving the impression that she has already taken a decision about impeaching [Assange]. And this is of course deeply unfortunate, for it throws a shadow over the prosecutor’s impartiality, says Thomas Olsson.

SWEDHR’s Notes and References

[1] a) The Iraq War documents leak. b) The Afghan War documents leak.

[2] Alexa O’Brien, “US investigation of WikiLeaks now entering 5th year“. The Professors’ Blog, 25 February 2014.

Excerpts: “Diplomatic Security Services, the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of State, along with “other elements of the U.S. government,” began investigating the unauthorized disclosure of a U.S. diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Iceland and its publication by WikiLeaks four years ago tomorrow, according to the testimony of a Department of State official in charge of the investigation at Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning’s trial.

Neil MacBride, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was in charge of the WikiLeaks grand jury, hired Andrew Peterson (who later requested the Appelbaum secret Sonic Order) to join the Terrorism and National Security Unit, nine days after Manning was arrested in Iraq. The Terrorism and National Security Unit became the National Security and International Crime Unit soon after.

While a grand jury is under the purview of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks is under the supervision of the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division at the Department of Justice or a higher authority, which includes the Attorney General.”

[3] Prof. Anders Romelsjö, in  “Kan Assange vara säker på rättvis behandling av svenska jurister?” (Jinge.se, 29 March 2015) writes:

“Regarding the issue of possible extradition [to the U.S.],  the praxis in Sweden has been during the last fifteen years to agree to the extradition request from the U.S. in the cases that the person is in Swedish territory” [“Vad gäller frågan om sannolikhet för en utlämning så har svensk praxis de senaste femton åren varit att bifalla samtliga utlämningsframställningar från USA – när personen i frågan har befunnits i svenskt territorium.”]

[4] M. Ferrada de Noli, “It is up to the Swedish Government, Not to the “Swedish Legal System”, to comply on pressures to extradite Assange. Part II of the series The Seven Pillars of Deception“. The Professors’ Blog, 22 January 2013.

[13] Dick Sundevall won Ordfronf demokratipris 2003, Guldspaden 2005 (Annual Swedish journalism award, shared with Christian Holmén). He has also been nominated to stora journalistpriset (“The Swedish Grand Journalism Prize”).

[14] SWEDHR’s translation corresponds to the text retrieved at Para§raph on the 1 of April 2015.

[15] This organization, at the time of the 2010 events called “The brotherhood”, changed later its name to “Religious Social Democrats of Sweden“. The woman accuser, identified here as “A”, was then political secretary of the organization. Other conspicuous members were for instance Thomas Borgström, the partner of Claes Borgström in the law firm counseling the plaintiffs.

[16] See M. Ferrada de Noli, “The affair Irmeli Krans in the case of Sweden against Assange“. The Professors’ Blog, 17 April 2011. There is referred the following Twitter posted by police officer Imeli Krans (translation):

Irmeli Krans: “Claes Borgström is a worth-admiring and axtremely knowledgeable lawyer. I am proud he is a social democrat”

http://professorsblogg.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/interrogationofsw252cbyik1.jpg

[17] From the Wikipedia article on Claes Borgström:

“Borgström claims that all men carry a collective responsibility for violence against women and has in this context supported Gudrun Schyman‘s “Tax on Men“.

[18] Id. The explanation given by Claes Borgström is to be found at the webpage [HERE] of his Ombudsman office at the time. Borgström would have demanded that Sweden boycott the 2006 World Cup in Germany “in protest against the increase in the trafficking in women that the event is expected to result in”.[HERE]

[19] See Sture Bergwall:

“Quick’s lawyer Claes Borgström has been criticized for failing to protect his mentally disturbed client’s objective interest in being judged not guilty.” It is also referred that Borgström reported himself to the Swedish Bar Association on this allegations. 

[20] See a sequence around the issuing of the European Arrest Warrant by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny against Julian Assange, and where the conclusion emerging is that the real target of the EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process. In: M. Ferrada de Noli, “In Search Of A Solution. Refuting Elisabeth Massi Fritz SvD statements on Assange case“. The Professors’ Blogg, 7 February 2014.

[21] Id.

[22] In “Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden” (published in Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 106-108). Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli directly address a criticism to the Prosecutor-General Anders Perkelev, characterizing an allegedly infringement of the neutrality principle. It referred to Perkelev reacting against the public stance of the Liberal Party’s judicial spokesperson Johan Pehrson MP, on the case Assange, while not saying a word about the expressions of PM Reinfeldt and some ministers in his administration who have intervened in the legal process o behalf of the women accusing Assange.

[23] In fact, in his Letter of Response to the Supreme Court regarding the detention on remand of Julian Assange of 24 March 2015, Prosecutor-General Anders Perkelev gave support to the decision apparently taken by prosecutor Marianne Ny, regarding the steps taken  on the Assange case. Perkelev expresses:

“I support the prosecutor’s reasoning and view to await to hold an interview with Julian Assange at the embassy in London.”

[24]M. Ferrada de Noli, “Amidst discussion in Sweden on dropping the “case” VS. Assange, US Justice Minister Eric Holder arriving to meet Swedish counterpart & lecture in Parliament“. The Professors’ Blog, 2 February 2014:

“In the middle of an interesting Swedish debate on the whereabouts of the case in London, with a growing questioning on the validity of the “case Assange” done by multiple personalities of the legal system, it is now announced that . The visit of US Justice Minister Eric Holder to  Sweden on the 4 of February, corresponds to an arrangement by the Swedish Parliament and the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm. According to a brief dispatch in SvD. Holder also meet his Swedish counterparts Beatrice Ask and the Swedish Prosecutor-General. Other activities were Eric Holder lecture at the Swedish Parliament titled, “A More Just and Inclusive World: Confronting the Civil Rights Challenges of Our Time”.”

[25] The Snowden documents revealed in 2013 that the U.S. asked the prosecution of Assange in August 2010 to the handful of governments participating under US command in the military occupation of Afghanistan. [See Obviously, only Sweden has initiated a prosecutors investigation on Assange. At the time of the U.S. government request, Sweden’s foreign policy was under the subservient rule of Carl Bildt, in its turn exposed by WikiLeaks of being secret information officer for the US. Source: M Ferrada de Noli, “Analysis: Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.” The Professors’ Blog, 7 October 2014.

[25b] Leif Elinder, in Kasta prestigen över bord i fallet Assange  (Göteborg Posten. 1 September 2012) writes:

“Small countries like Sweden have more difficult to oppose to pressures from the Americans. This became obvious in 2001, when we gave over to USA two Egyptian asylum seekers, to be transported to Egypt and interrogated under torture. AN independent committee established that Sweden had breached the UN ban on torture”. [“Många menar att små länder som Sverige har svårare att motsätta sig amerikanska påtryckningar. Detta blev uppenbart år 2001 då vi överlämnade två asylsökande egyptier till USA för att transporteras till Egypten för att förhöras under tortyr. En oberoende kommitté konstaterade att Sverige brutit mot FN:s konvention mot tortyr.]

[26] In plain words, “Brott ej styrkt” is a prosecutor’s formula ending an investigation that will not lead to indictment or court process, because the investigation could not established that it was an illegal behaviour or facts that would support the claims involved in the accusation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *