SWEDHR Research & Reports, Vol 2., N° 20, 22 July 2015
By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli
“Alguien tendrá que responder alguna vez por estos tres años de violación de los derechos humanos de un ciudadano”/“Someone, sometime, will have to respond for the three years of violating the human rights of a citizen“./ Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño
The almost “too late” discussions now on-going between the Ecuadorian authorities and representatives of the Swedish government, are partly rooted in earlier refusals at United Nations forums by the Swedish Foreign Ministry of meeting legal and human-rights related issues in the case Assange. These issues have been put forward to Sweden, and since long, not only by Ecuador – but also by a number of countries such as Argentina, Nicaragua, Cuba, Slovakia and Uruguay; and are in fact based in conventions at United Nations that Sweden is a signatory. On the other hand, and in absence of a real legal case, there is an ostensible manipulation from the part of Sweden through protracting the interrogation of Assange all the way during these five years, all which would eventually permit a prescription of the imputations without the necessity of losing face with a dropping of the case on the base of publicly demonstrated falsely accusations (in Swedish: brotten kan ej styrkas). From the perspective of early analysis by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, all this is a confirmation of the “Stalling Hypothesis on the case Assange” we enunciated already 2012 . The case has never been a legal endeavour, but a piece in a political design to partly hamper WikiLeaks, and partly give time to complete the U.S. case. The fear of an extradition was/is well grounded.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Ecuador’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ricardo Patiño
On the 10 of August 2010, two weeks after the release by WikiLeaks of the Afghan documents  exposing a series of war-crime related episodes, the U.S. government asked the few countries participating in the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan, to initiate a legal prosecution against Mr Julian Assange. 
The pre-trial detention of the founder of WikiLeaks initiated just weeks later by Sweden has continued unabated – and illicitly, according to the United Nations norms – for five years now. In fact, Article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the United Nations (ICCPR) – of which Sweden is a signatory – stipulates that all individuals under prosecution investigation – even if they are only “detained” or not being charged with any crime, “shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”. 
As widely known, Mr Assange has never been charged of any crime, neither there is a legal ground in the allegations of sexual misconduct imputed against him – as the examination by experts of the leaked police interrogation protocols has established to the best of their knowledge. 
In recent days, the Swedish media has again speculated on the delay of the interrogation of Assange in London, meaning that such a delay is to be imputed to Assange himself and to the government of Ecuador, which ultimately would have to clear the visit of the Swedish prosecutors and police into the premises of their embassy in London. The Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm has clearly refuted such a misleading reports, giving a precise timetable of their epistolary communication with the Swedish authorities. Meanwhile – up to the 21 July 2015 –the Swedish prosecutor has remained silent on the causes, thus giving ample opportunity for media speculations.
What is it that the Swedish authorities are not saying about the real causes – or the real content – of this late communication they have found themselves prompted with the Ecuadorian government?
This article analyses such a legal deadlock in the “legal case”, against the backdrop of the political behaviour demonstrated by both the Swedish government and the Swedish legal system in the management, in fact, the manipulation of the “case Assange”.
Hence, a truthful insight concerning the publicized delay of the interrogation of Assange in London has to be put it in these four important contexts relevant to human rights: a) the changes in the Swedish stance on human rights issues of geopolitical significance; b) the peculiarities of the Sweden’s legal system; c) the intermingling in Sweden of government, judicial and other authorities of the legal system, instead of a clear separation of powers, which result in a multiple political interference in legal cases of political value; d) the role of the Swedish media.
New geopolitical stance behind Sweden’s human-rights breaches
a) Firstly, the context of Sweden’s new political behaviour regarding the handling of the human rights issues in general, a position that Sweden changed drastically since the times of Carl Bildt being in charge of Sweden’s foreign policy – and that has persisted in this government.
The reiterate disregards – or direct transgressions – by Sweden on human rights during the last decade (illustrated for instance in the direct or indirect collaboration by Sweden in a variety of illegal renditions of political refugees to be transported for torture elsewhere),  have caused in certain cases not only direct sanctions to Sweden from the part of the United Nations . During the election for members of the Human Rights body at the UN, November 2012, the candidacy of Sweden achieved the lowest preferences in the vote counting by the UN-country members.  However, the topic of the general deterioration of Sweden’s international stand on the human rights front, or even this particular episode at the UN that was/is outmost significant for Sweden, has not been commented by ether the government or the Swedish media at large – as it would be expected in a democratic nation who says caring for human rights.
Later in 2014, other aggravating reports on Sweden reached Latin-America (Spanish headline: “Suecia exporta armas pesadas a regímenes que violan los derechos humanos”); the media-report denounces that “the government of Sweden still continuing to send military equipment to regimes accused of human rights abuses”, and that the sending consist in “heavy weaponry”. 
Sweden’s authorities and accomplice media have dealt nonchalantly with the above-described panorama of misconduct against human rights. And in spite that these issues are at large ignored in Sweden, they are known in the international forum. And they are quite known by the Ecuadorian government. It is inevitable that, in reviewing with Swedish officials what Foreign Minister Patiño has referred as to “three years violation of the human rights of a citizen”, those facts will be a mirror hold by history in front of the Swedes.
The changes in the Swedish stance on human rights issues of geopolitical significance, would in turn correspond to the new posture of Sweden regarding strategic alliances – shifted from the active neutrality of the honourable Olof Palme’s time – to a subservient position towards the U.S. In contrast, just some decades ago Sweden was the country-leader of the non-aligned nations, and primarily supporter of the poor nations of the Third World. Unfortunately- and outmost risky for the security of the Swedish nation – this new alliance has more to do with defending the military and economic strategic interests of the U.S., and not of Sweden.
One illustration of the above was the abolition of military conscription, paralleled with the reducing of the army in “mobile units” that have been dispatched to military missions abroad – ultimately under U.S. command, as in the military occupation of Afghanistan. Another recent illustration was the active political intervention of Sweden in Ukraine; from the participating in person of the Swedish foreign minister in the Maidan demonstrations that led to the putsch, to the public support of the military campaigns against the population of Donbass.
Ultimately, as the most “hardliner” among the EU-countries, Sweden was viewed as a proxy in the EU of the U.S. positions on Ukraine. None of the war-crimes perpetrated on the civil population by the Kiev forces (i.e. the massacres of Odessa, Mariupol, etc., or the aerial bombing of Lugansk civilians) has never been condemned by the Swedish government, neither by the Swedish media. At the contrary, as seen in the image at left, the Swedish Foreign Minister of Sweden at the time, Carl Bildt, energetically defended the use of force against the protesters in Odessa –events which ended in the infamous massacre of nearly 100 people burned to death.
It is worth mentioning that while the Swedish government has tried to legitimate their leading support for drastic sanctions against Russia with the pretext of Russia’s annexation of the Russian-ethnic territory of Crimea – which produced 0 fatal casualties – the same Swedish government opposes the sanction against Israel for its military interventions in Gaza – which have killed 500 civilians, among them many children. As reminded by one doctor colleague at SWEDHR, “A real human rights policy is only trustworthy when free from double standards.”
The peculiar legal system of Sweden.
b) Secondly, peculiarities of the Sweden’s legal system, a few of them of a medieval nature, and that are remaining unique amidst EU countries. In fact, the legal right of the Swedish authorities of keeping a person detained without trial for indefinite time  is a legal behaviour that historically characterized old fascist regimes, and it should not exist among the legal institutions and democratic traditions of Sweden. Not to mention the system of politically appointed judges (nämndeman).  Interestingly, Sweden is the EU-country having the highest number of prosectors, per capita.
Regarding the praxis of indefinite detention without trial, the Director-General for Legal Affairs at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Anders Rönquist, declared in an interview conducted by journalist Sarah Harrison in Geneve January 2015 “that Sweden was under no obligation to limit time in pre-trial detention, or limit the time someone is detained, even if not charged”; he namely “had no issues from a human rights perspective of detaining someone indefinitely, even if they have not been charged.” 
Journalist Sarah Harrison interviews Director-General Anders Rönqvist at the UN in Geneve, 26 January 2015.
Other peculiarities of the Swedish legal system, in comparison with other democracies, are shown in a biased management of accusations regarding purported sexual misconduct on Swedish women. The analysis “Does Swedish justice depend on who stands accused?”, published in The Professors’ Blog, raises the question on whether this would depend on who is the accused, or on who is the prosecutor. The investigation showed that in similar ‘Assange cases’, Swedish prosecutors decided differently. This passage from the article’s summary:
A Swedish top politician of the pro-US Swedish government party (Moderater) member of the Parliament since 1998, has newly been acquitted by the Swedish prosecutor authority – in record short time – of “crime suspicions” regarding an alleged sexual misconduct against a 21 year-old woman. The prosecutor that dropped the case based his conclusion on that “word stands against word”, and “evidence was not sufficient”. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the publicist known in the nation for exposing wrongdoings of the Swedish government, is denied interrogation in London and thus the dropping of his case continue being protracted – also in record time, but instead for being longest. In both cases “words stand against words”, and no evidence has been put forward. In a third case, a leftist refugee from Chile, also an internationally acclaimed opera singer which shadowed local artists, is sentenced to years of prison in a similar case where “word stand against word”, and while the court even recognizes that the word of the woman is tenable as sufficient for a conviction. 
Interferences of the government in the ‘case Assange’.
c) Thirdly, the management of the case Assange by the political authorities at government level put in serious doubt the notion of Sweden being a reichstat. We refer here to the repeatedly interferences done about the legal process by the then Prime Minister Reinfeldt, or ministers at the government such as Göran Häglund [quotes below, referring letter to Prosecutor General Perklev]. This behaviour have demonstrated that – definitely at least in the case Assange – a separation of the state powers does not apply in Sweden.
All which negates recent declarations of the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Annika Söder, who, in a videoed press conference in Geneve 26 January 2015, wished to give a picture of a reichstat Sweden. In responding the question, “What the government is doing to solve the situation of Mr Assange”? Ms. Annika Söder replied, “…We hope that there will be ways to deal with the legal process in one way or the other, but this is up to the legal authorities”. 
Then we have that the intermingling in Sweden of the executive power and judicial authorities or legal system in general in the ‘case Assange’. Episodes of interferences of the government in the legal process of the Assange “case” have been ominous. We have Carl Bildt’s declaration in Almedalen stating that an interrogation of Assange on London is not possible.  We have the press releases of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs equating the press releases of the Prosecutor Authority, and vice versa. We have the Supreme Court asking first the Prosecutor General of Sweden for his opinion before issuing a verdict on the case Assange;  this, while the boss of this Prosecutor General is nothing less than the Interior Minister of the politically elected government. The verdict of the Supreme Court was – no surprisingly – favourable to the official position of the government, a stance designed previously by Carl Bildt, in a matter seemingly considered primarily in the sphere of foreign policy – and not of “normal justice”.
Click on the image above for the video of the brief press conference of the Swedish delegation at the UN in Geneva, responding questions on the Assange case
We contacted the Prosecutor authority of Sweden (Åklagarmyndigheten) to have some aspects clarified on the relationships between this authority and the executive powers. This is what Mr Simon Hoff, from the press office, confirmed: “The Prosecutor authority is and independent institution placed under the Department of Justice. The General Prosecutor is appointed by the government, and his immediately boss is the Interior Minister.” 
In reference to the interferences of the executive power in the legal process of the case, we wrote in 2014 to General Prosecutor, Mr Anders Perklev, remarking his ostensible impartiality in the management of the case Assange. 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.
In such missive,  we reminded Perklev of the following:
On 11 February 2011, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in the DN and Aftonbladet newspapers, that Julian Assange had been indicted. He then went on to take a position that was biased in favour of the complainants in the case. Not only was this political interference in an ongoing case, but also it was based on untruths; Julian Assange has not been charged. The statement by the Prime Minister was: “We have an independent judiciary which also in this case acted according to Swedish law. One has even public-indicted Julian Assange on allegations of rape”. And, “I can only regret that the rights and position of women weigh so lightly when it comes to this type of questions compared to other types of theories brought forward.”
On 15 August 2012, Göran Haglund, Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, told the newspaper Expressen: “Assange is a very coward person that does not dare to confront the charges against him”. And he added, “If he did the things he is accused of, I think one can call him a lowlife. He seems to be a miserable wretch.” 
The Swedish media and Mr Assange
d) Fourthly, and finally, the ethical behaviour of the Swedish media towards issues of human rights relevant to Swedish international prestige. This is an issue discussed at length in the book “Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues”, chapter “The Swedish-Media Paradox And The Case Against Assange”. 
The Swedish press and TV have conducted a Trial by Media  of Mr Julian Assange since the very beginning. It has gone so far, that Judge Ridley wrote in his verdict of 24 February 2011 issued in Belmarsh Court in London (City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court) regarding on of the appeals in the case. Judge Riddle wrote literally: “There has been considerable adverse publicity in Sweden for Mr Assange, in the popular press, the television and in parliament (by the Swedish Prime Minister)”.  We have referred extensively of these breaches in journalism ethics in a variety of analyses [22-27]. Here we will take up only the media reports referring the “delay in the interrogation of Assange in London”.
The tone in the Swedish media has shifted from attacking Mr Assange ad hominem, and also giving ample coverage to the nominal accusers’ version through their lawyers, to commence mentioning possible legal “blunders” in steps taken or not taken by one prosecutor in the case, Ms Marianne Ny. The media has also been useful megaphone of the interferences in the legal case done by Prime Minister Reinfeldt, and without making any critical comment on the questionability of such interferences by the part of the executive power onto an on-going legal investigation under supposedly independent prosecutors. 
Regarding the delayed interrogation in London, mainstream media such as main evening paper Aftonbladet – often ascribed to positions empathetic to the current social democratic government – placed straightforwardly the blame on Mr Assange. Moreover, it explained on the base of Assange’s personality traits, which the panel of journalists indulged to ridicule –or ridicule themselves – in a video broadcasted by Aftonbated. We at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights wrote on the grotesque event in an analysis published by NewsVoice .
Osín Catwell, one conspicuous Aftonbladet’s journalists stated in the videoed panel, “he (Assange) is just ridiculous”. Other expressions on Assange were “Criminals of this sort” (”brottslingar av det här slaget”). In another utterance, journalist Fredrik Virtanen says, “He [Julian Assange], seems becoming more and more cracked” [Han verkar ju bli mer och mer havererad”]. 
Further, the Swedish media, particularly state-owned media, has tried to thrown a smoke courting onto the political context, and instead they wish the stalemate to appear caused by a minor “legal blunder” of the Swedish prosecutor, or straightforwardly the result of a conduct by the Assange side and the Ecuadorian government, which are tacitly or directly blamed for the current protracting of the legal process –namely the interrogation in London. The Sweden-based publication The Local gives a good illustration.
In the edition of 16 of July the publication writes: “Sweden’s director of public prosecution Marianne Ny declined to comment, but responded via a press officer that she “is trying to make an interrogation happen, preferably as soon as possible. She is however waiting for permission from Ecuador.” 
Permission from Ecuador?
What The Local, or Marianne Ny, are not saying is that issues under current discussion are of high political caliber. Between two nations, issues of legal procedure cannot be separated from issues of international conventions to which those procedures refer. One of these issues is the human rights violation of Assange done by precisely the Swedish prosecutor and the Swedish government. Another is the issue of the aberrant behavior of the Swedish legal system that allow authorities to maintain arrested a person during five years without hearing him, without the need to taken that person to trial.
Neither they mention that Marianne Ny – according to journalist John Pilger’s report –did not show up to the first agreed London meeting, or state the reasons why that meeting did not take place. Pilger told AAP, “Until recently, she (Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny) refused to come to London to interview Assange”. “Then she said she was coming, then she cancelled her appointment. “It’s a farce but one with grim consequences for Assange should he dare step outside the Ecuadorian embassy.” 
Another dispatch from The Local says: “Fredrik Berg, press spokesman at Sweden’s Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten), did not want to comment, but said there had been problems with a number of documents that had delayed the process.” 
Why to call it euphemistically “a number of documents”, instead for what it really is? Meaning: a number of outmost important issues concerning respect of other nations’ sovereignty, as well as international covenants.
To the best of my knowledge, the arrogance showed here by certain Swedish officials has no parallel in negotiations of this type. A central issue – that any democratic, non cultural-racist minded person would understand – is that if a person has been given asylum in the territory of a democratic country (as the embassy compounds are so regarded), any foreign authority wishing to conduct an interrogation or any other legal procedure has to also adjust the procedure to the legislation valid in the democratic country granting the asylum – regardless if that country is considered in the pejorative terms as depicted by the Swedish paper DN in the case of Ecuador. 
Ecuador may be demanding, with full right, that the interrogation procedures should be adjusted to Ecuadorian law. Here it might reside a main problem, because at difference of the Swedish legal standards, in Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and most of Latin-American countries, the accused (and the appointed defence) has the right to see all the documents pertaining the pre-investigation. Which is apparently not the case in the process-tradition of Sweden.
Secondly, Patiño has very openly linked this to the issue of human rights for Assange, his right to political asylum, respectively Ecuador’s right to have their asylum-decision respected by other democratic countries. This has not been the case from the part of Sweden. Sweden has treated arrogantly not only Ecuador, but also other Latin-American or European countries which have – in god faith – tried to intervene to lift the deadlock of the case.
The above is described in an article in Spanish by CBS News, “Suecia ignora recomendaciones de Cuba, Ecuador y Argentina en caso Assange” (Sweden ignores suggestions from Cuba, Ecuador and Argentina in the case Assange).  But in fact there are yet other countries that have pledged to Sweden to respect the human right of Assange to political asylum, or even in general terms, Sweden’s obligation as a democratic country to take a prisoner to trial, or dismiss the case, after such a long time. In many countries this lapse is only one day, or maximum two, when it is not just some hours. In Sweden the pre-trial detention can be indefinite in time.
Sweden should reconsider, as soon as possible, its stance on the human rights of Mr Julian Assange as well all the persons involved in this long protracted case. 
Meanwhile, the Latin-American public and the Spanish-speaking world are reading the following headlines:
“Ecuador accuses Sweden for violation of human rights”. 
“Urgent: Ecuador accuses Sweden of violating Assange’s human rights”, 
“Sweden violates human rights of the WikiLeaks founder” 
“Ecuador accuses Sweden of violating rights of Julian Assange” 
On the 19 of June 2015, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, Mr Ricardo Patiño, declared during a press conference with international journalists, in a direct reference to the Assange case: “Someone, sometime, will have to respond for the three years of violating the human rights of a citizen“. 
NOTES & REFERENCES
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Chapter ““Operation Stalling”. Explaining Sweden’s Reluctance To Conduct Assange’s Interrogation In London”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 99 – 105.
Excerpts available in the RT interview published in The Professors’ Blog, Timing the processes. The “Stalling Hypothesis”, 3 May 2012.
 See M. Ferrada de Noli, “Analysis: Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.” The Professors Blog, 7 October 2014. Sourced in:
See Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher, “Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters.” The Intercept, 18 February 2014;
See Kevin Gosztola, ‘Manhunting Timeline’ Further Suggests US Pressured Countries to Prosecute WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief. The Disenter, 18 February 2014.
The Snowden document referred by Kevin Gosztolas stated the following, according to the above-referred Disenter publication:
“The United States on 10 August urged other nations with forces in Afghanistan, including Australia, United Kingdom and Germany, to consider filing criminal charges against Julian Assange, founder of the rogue WikiLeaks Internet website and responsible for the unauthorized publication of over 70,000 classified documents covering the war in Afghanistan. The documents may have been provided to WikiLeaks by Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. The appeal exemplifies the start of an international effort to focus the legal element of national power upon non-state actor Assange and the human network that supports WikiLeaks.”
 United Nations, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, into force since 23 March 1976: PART III, Article 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.”
 Dick Sundevall, “Prosecutor’s behaviour in ‘case’ Assange questions Swedish principle of prosecutor-neutrality”. SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 1., No 12, 3 April 2015.
 The most known episode of this participation of Sweden in the CIA renditions was the Egyptians case of 2005, and for which Sweden was later sanctioned by the UN for violation the absolute ban on torture. Another, less known episode is the rendition in Somalia of two refugees from Sweden; media reports accused the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of tacitly collaborating in the Somalia renditions trough not intervening in time in spite knowing the facts, and that Sweden’s own security police had reported that the two refugees were not a terrorist threat. The issue is referred in: 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, 19 December 2013.
A review of Sweden’s historical behaviour concerning extradition or rendition of prisoners of was is found in M. Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Chapter “In The History Of Swedish Extradition Of Political Prisoners To Foreign Powers”. Pages 219 – 229.
 Human Rights Watch, “Sweden Violated Torture Ban with U.S. Help U.N. Committee Rebukes Sweden for Sending Terror Suspect to Torture”, 19 May 2015.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Chapter “The Falling Of Sweden’s International Status, & The Assange Case As Sweden’s Political Alibi”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 12 – 18.
 Democracy Now, “Suecia exporta armas pesadas a regímenes que violan los derechos humanos“, 2 July 2014.
 Interview with the Director-General for Legal Affairs at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Anders Rönquist. Interview conducted by journalist Sarah Harrison in Geneve, 26 January 2015. In, “Sweden Tells the UN that Indefinite Detention Without Charge is Fine”. Wikileaks.org, 5 February 2015. https://wikileaks.org/Sweden-Tells-the-UN-that.html
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Shall Sweden’s politically appointed Judges decide the political case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?”, The Professors Blog, 29 May 2012.
 Interview with the Director-General for Legal Affairs at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Anders Rönquist. Id., op.cit.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Does Swedish justice depend on who stands accused?“, The Professors Blog, 25 November 2013.
 The WikiLeaks Channel, “Sweden tells the UN that indefinite detention without chrage is fine“. Youtube video with the press conference by the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Annika Söder, in Geneve 26 January 2015.
 Leif Elinder, “Kasta prestigen över bord i fallet Assange.” GP, 1 Sept. 2012.
 Högsta Domstolen, (Supreme Court, Sweden). “Högsta domstolen begär yttrande från riksåklagaren om häktningen av Julian Assange”. 10 March 2015.
 M Ferrada de Noli’s telephone consultation to Mr. Simon Hoff, press office of the Swedish Prosecutor authority. Conducted 22 July 2015, 12:50.
 M Ferrada de Noli, Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden. Published in the book “Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 106-108.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Chapter “The Swedish-Media Paradox And The Case Against Assange” pages 83 – 87.
 M. Ferrada de Noli Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange? The Professors’ Blog, 27 January 2012 City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court). “The judicial authority in Sweden –v- Julian Paul Assange. Findings of facts and reasons”. See “Summary of facts found”, Item 19, page 10.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Trial by Media fortsätter. The Professors’ Blog, 20 February 2011.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Journalister till tjänst i krigföringen mot Assange, och mot hederlig journalistik, The Professors’ Blog, 4 February
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Journalister till tjänst i krigföringen mot Assange, och mot hederlig journalistik”; d) The Professors’ Blog, 17 February 2012
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Om de upprepade anklagelserna mot Assange av svenska journalister”. The Professors’ Blog, 17 February 2012
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “The ‘Duck Pond’ Theses. Explaining Swedish journalism and the anti-Assange smear campaign”. The Professors’ Blog, 1 December 2011; f
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda”. The Professors’ Blog, 15 April 2011;
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Contents & Links to Parts I – V. The Professors’ Blog, 14 April 2011.
 M Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish government using media to interfere in the legal process against Julian Assange“. The Professors’ Blog, 27 January 2012;
 M. Ferrada de Noli, SWEDHR’s article, “Analysis – Human rights of Julian Assange continuously infringed by Swedish institutions and media“. NewsVoice, 20 April 2015.
 Torbjörn Sassersson, “Lena Mellin, Oisín Cantwell, Fredrik Virtanen mobbar Assange och romer – Och förlorar all respekt”. NewsVoice.se, 29 March 2015.
 The Local, Sweden, “Swedish prosecutor cancels Assange talks“, 18 June 2015. M. Ferrada de Noli, “Julian Assange, “From Hero To Villain” VS “From Villain To Hero”, The Professors’ Blog, 30 June 2012.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, “Julian Assange, “From Hero To Villain” VS “From Villain To Hero”, The Professors’ Blog, 30 June 2012.
 CBSNEWS, “Suecia ignora recomendaciones de Cuba, Ecuador y Argentina en caso Assange”, 26 June 2015.
 M. Ferrada de Noli, Anders Romelsjö, Leif Elinder, “A political solution of the case Assange” (orig. Swedish, “A politisk lösning i fallet Assange – regeringens garantier mot en utlämning”). Västerbotten kuriren, Sweden, 1 November 2014.
 Momarandu, “Ecuador acusa a Suecia por violación a los DDHH”, 19 June 2015
 Ecuador Inmediato, “Urgente: Ecuador acusa a Suecia de violar derechos humanos de Assange“, id.
 Radio Mundial, “Suecia viola derechos humanos de fundador de Wikileaks“, id.
 El veedor, “Ecuador acusa a Suecia de violar derechos de Julian Assange”, id.
 Telesur, “Ecuador acusa a Suecia de violar derechos de Julian Assange“, id.