Here is official correspondence between the UN special rapporteur and the Swedish Foreign Ministry on this topic - this was easier to find for me than the offic

Here is official correspondence between the UN special rapporteur and the Swedish Foreign Ministry on this topic - this was easier to find for me than the official report, but I think it contains the relevant claims: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24838 https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublic... In particular, section 3 - Reported arbitrariness of the preliminary investigation - raises 11 ways the judicial proceedings were highly problematic, each with numerous instances of such behavior. Quoting a few of the more egregious ones, an order for his arrest was issued a few hours after two women first contacted the police about the possibility of compelling an HIV test for Assange; an official statement hadn't even been collected from one of the women yet; no statement from Assange had been requested or collected before emitting the arrest warrant; official statements made by the accusers were modified post factum in the police databases; and that both the investigating officer and an attorney for the two accusers (who sought to reopen the case after it was first closed) were both friends of a former Swedish minister of justice "at the time when Swedish security police unlawfully kidnapped and handed over two persons to CIA-custody and subsequent torture". This final collaboration may be exactly one of the reasons why Sweden would have been preferred as the extraditing state vs the UK. It's also important to note that, unlike Swededn, the UK is a common law country where the mechanisms for protecting individual rights are significantly different from the civil law system in Sweden.