5 ms·

Some older articles: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... ht

• tremon 7y ago
  No, the attacks on the Swedish prosecutors are fully warranted. He submitted to Swedish investigation multiple times. From the article: In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. We have to stop believing that there was really an interest in leading an investigation into a sexual offense Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later [..] Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. [..] At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. [..] But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name. That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. [..] Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. Assange’s lawyers petitioned Sweden’s highest court to force public prosecutors to either finally press charges or suspend the case. When the Swedes told the UK that they may be forced to abandon the case, the British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare get cold feet!!» Keep in mind, this is the UN's special rapporteur on torture, not some random opinion. Further on in the article: When a country like Sweden declines to answer questions submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the government is aware of the illegality of its behavior and wants to take no responsibility for its behavior
  • nsajko 7y ago
    So the prosecutor's and the police opinion are just "some random opinions"? Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it. Imagine someone else was sought by Sweden for multiple counts of sexual offence on different women, and then he (and his team of lawyers) used the extradition process to wait for the statute of limitations to pass so he would dodge even an investigation of the accusations. > During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person. This "smells" bad, but really even that (without elaboration) does not excuse the attacks on the Swedish justice system. I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. I think there very well could be a reason for video-linked questioning to be appropriate in 44 cases, but not in Assange's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... EDIT: Replying to children: The interview makes a narrative by presenting things out of context, but what they are doing is actually quite inappropriate in the case of the sexual assault allegations. Some examples: * They present the potential victims as unwilling regarding charging Assange with rape. The first problem with this is that it implies that rape is a civil matter, when (as is well known) it is in fact a crime. Thus the potential victims are only relevant as witnesses, they would not be parties to the case except as witnesses (and maybe they could get some damages). The second problem is that the two women were in fact quite interested in getting Assange prosecuted: they got legal representation, and prevented the prosecutors from dropping the investigation. * I do not think that it is necessarily suspicious that no DNA could be recovered from the condom. Especially in the context of the allegation, with Assange allegedly breaking the condom on purpose.
    • rendall 7y ago
      Yes, I would like the Swedish government to respond, too. According to the interview - with the UN Rapporteur on Torture - he asked them and they refused to comment. Again, according to this fellow - who has experience in talking to governments - "No comment" is highly unusual _when the government in question has nothing to hide_. Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be innocent of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? If so, I get it, man.