> threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all? I agree with you that it is an obvious pressure by the state, the question remains how is that technically

> threats to ignore any diplomatic immunity at all? I agree with you that it is an obvious pressure by the state, the question remains how is that technically illegal and how is he technically "arbitrarily detained." I'm looking forward to read the details tomorrow, or something more that you know even now. I also find it good that Ecuador remained firm, because otherwise the claim would be that Ecuador agreed to what was demanded (as in UK saying "we've just made threats but haven't done anything else"), so there would be no chance even to consider if something is legal or not.