SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 2., N° 46, 15 March 2016
By Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, Dr Nozomi Hayase in representation of The Indicter Editorial Board, Professor Anders Romelsjö, SWEDHR vice-chairman, and Dr Lena Oske in representation of SWEDHR’s Board of Directors.
The Swedish section of Amnesty International – a Swedish NGO partially financed by the Swedish government [1-3] – issued a statement 14 March 2016, restating their stance on the Assange case. In it they assert, “Sweden is a constitutional state who respects its international obligations.”  It is an odd statement, considering that Sweden has just refused to respect the UNGWAD ruling on Mr Julian Assange, which is based on a variety of international conventions in which Sweden is a signatory state. 
The statement also exhibits a central contradiction of terms: On the one hand, it advises the Swedish and UK government to comply with the above mentioned UNWGAD ruling – which calls for the release of Mr Julian Assange and the ending of the Swedish EAW against him, while on the other hand, their statement insists that the Swedish prosecutor’s investigation against Assange must continue and be completed. In other words, the arrest order would still persist. 
The statement starts by implicitly referring to an article that the chairman of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights published in The Indicter on the 6th of March 2016 , denouncing a series of anomalies committed by the Swedish section of Amnesty International. These irregularities have consisted in stances deviating – or in blunt opposition to those by the parent organization, Amnesty International based in London. 
Among these several inconsistencies, the article in The Indicter emphasized the position that the Swedish section of Amnesty International (hereafter referred as Amnesty Sweden) took in 2012, which they still maintain, regarding the negation of guarantees against extradition to the U.S. that the parental organization Amnesty International advocated to the Swedish government on behalf of Mr Julian Assange. 
Our conclusive assessments in the above-mentioned article, which we stand behind fully, are as follows:
- That a former agent paid by the Swedish secret services, Mr Martin Fredriksson, “was significantly involved in the government’s efforts to ensure that the Swedish section of Amnesty International would not advocate for the Swedish government to issue guarantees against the onward extradition of Julian Assange to the US, as called for by Amnesty International, Amnesty Sweden’s parent organization headquartered in London.”
- That the declarations made in The Local on 28 September 2012 by the representative of Amnesty Sweden, Mr Bobby Vellucci, were nearly identical to both a) the message sent previously to Amnesty Sweden by the above mentioned ex-government agent,  and b) to remarks on the issue made in an interview just weeks before by the Swedish Foreign Minister at the time, Mr Carl Bildt. 
- That in his declarations made in The Local on behalf of Amnesty Sweden, Mr Bobby Vellucci had blatantly misinformed the public by stating that an “investigation of the charges” against Mr Assange would proceed.  The facts: Mr Julian Assange has never been charged of any crime across any investigation conducted in Sweden.
However, instead of addressing the fact-based criticism above, or the rest of issues exposed in our article, the Amnesty Sweden statement released 14 March 2016,  discredits the article in The Indicter as “pure nonsense”, and bases such an assertion by exclusively using a straw man fallacy: the only argument in the statement against our article refers to something we never said. Amnesty Sweden argues that their email reply to Martin Fredriksson was no different than replies given to “others” on the same issue. However, we never mentioned Amnesty Sweden’s email reply to Fredriksson. Besides, Amnesty Sweden failed to show who would the “others” have been that were “questioning” the same issue as Fredriksson.
Further, Martin Fredriksson was in the main not putting a question to Amnesty Sweden on the non-extradition guarantees. The conclusive remarks to Amnesty Sweden put forward by Fredriksson in his email were placed in imperative form. The ex-Swedish security services agent was not in the main questioning something; he was dictating something. Fredriksson concluded his message of 27 September 2012 to Amnesty Sweden, in his request that they should not abide by the “incorrect” position of the parent organization Amnesty International on the issue of non-extradition guarantees for Assange:
“I do not understand how you shall have any credibility regarding the (Swedish) rule of law if you do not correct this.”  No interrogation mark here.
Whether Amnesty Sweden took the same stance dictated by Fredriksson by pure ‘coincidence’ of opinion, or by pure ‘coincidence’ with the official position of the Swedish government, or by their own conviction, is less relevant. That the government has been trying to influence on the case has been well established since long ago.  Here, the central issue is that the position Amnesty Sweden took on the non-extradition guarantees was not only unfair regarding the protection of Julian Assange’s human rights, but was also in direct contravention to the stance that Amnesty International, the parent organization has had and still has on this issue.
Notes and References
 Ett ljus som har brunnit i 50 år. Amnesty Press, 1 June 2011
 Anna Widestam. Amnestyfonden. Amnesty Historia – fondens historia.
 Ulf B Andersson, Amnesty i Sverige : Är krisen i Amnesty över? Amnesty Press, 2 March 2013.
 “Amnesty Sverige anser att Sverige är en rättsstat som respekterar sina internationella förpliktelser”
 Marcello Ferrada de Noli, UN Covenant on Civil & Political Rights says that the arresting of Mr Julian Assange can & should be put to an end. The Indicter, 15 December 2015.
 “När det gäller FN-gruppen som kom fram till att Assange är godtyckligt frihetsberövad (FN:s expertgrupp för godtyckliga frihetsberövanden) anser Amnesty att både Sverige och Storbritannien bör göra det de kan för att se till att länderna rättar dig efter det FN kommit fram till – men att brottsanklagelserna om våldtäkt måste få utredas.”
 Marello Ferrada de Noli, Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the U.S. The Indicter, 20 Feb 2016.
 Amnesty International, headquarters based in London: “Sweden should issue assurance it won’t extradite Assange to USA”, 27 Sept 2012.
 Oliver Gee, “Assange ‘guarantees’ spark Amnesty spat”. The Local, 28 Sept 2012.
 Carl Bildt, then Sweden’s foreign minister, declared in DN 19 August 2012:
– Rättssystemet i Sverige är oberoende. Jag kan inte göra några uttalanden som binder rättssystemet på något sätt. Då skulle jag bryta mot den svenska grundlagen.
Previously, Bild said during an interview in Belgrade:
Sweden has “independent judiciary, guaranteed by law,” and that “political authorities do not influence its work”
 “Förstår inte hur ni ska kunna ha någon trovärdighet när det gäller rättssäkerhet om ni inte rättar till detta.” Observation put forward by Nickelodion in the Swedish debate forum Flashback.
 Amnesty Sweden statement released 14 September 2016.
 “Förstår inte hur ni ska kunna ha någon trovärdighet när det gäller
rättssäkerhet om ni inte rättar till detta.” Observation put forward by Nickelodion in the Swedish debate forum Flashback, 14 September 2016.
 Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden. The Professors’ Blog, 4 February 2014.