Time for Sweden to
terminate the Assange case

Is it fair that a person who is on a mission in London has no discretion to the next 27 years to leave the building while the Swedish side could remedy the situation without significant disadvantage to anyone? The question sets former prosecutor Rolf Hill Branch. 

As described above, one can without much aggravation summarize the situation in the Assange case. And I am absolutely convinced that this situation is troubling, at least the Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General. To top it all, this situation is not only chicanes feature of Swedish authorities, but also for the British who helped it become possible.

What does it take to solve this dilemma? Well, it's about to bite into a very sour apple, but the discomfort should be tolerable when the alternative is so much worse.

A brief look back: As a celebrated star of Julian Assange visited Sweden in 2010. But the stay got a post game that he had not counted on. Two women he spent time with were worried about being infected with HIV, and therefore went to the police, one supporting the other. The police chose to establish a notification of violation of both, resulting in that Assange was arrested, detained and interrogated. The prosecutor then laid down the preliminary investigation regarding the serious title crimes, including rape. Remained only crime molestation, but even there is evidence location doubtful. Since Assange freed, he stayed in the country for some time. He has not fled from the Swedish justice.

For both women's bill then requested their legal counsel review of depreciation resolution with senior prosecutors. This decided that the investigation be reopened and that Assange would be interrogated and served on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. At that time, Assange left Sweden and was reluctant to return, when he became afraid of being extradited to the U.S. because of the crimes he is suspected of there. And whether this fear is well founded, it is clear that Assange is convinced that the risk of extradition exists.

The prosecutor requested in this situation Assange arrested in absentia, since the warrant taken Prosecutor issued an international arrest warrant in order to get Assange extradited to Sweden. In the Court of Appeal changed since the warrant so that the suspicion of rape would mean the less serious version of the offense. Assange was arrested in London and after high-profile legal assistance where British court decided in the end that he should be extradited to Sweden. Then succeeded Assange flee to Ecuador's embassy in London, after which he was granted political asylum in Ecuador. At the embassy, ​​he teaches remain until 2040, when the limitation period has passed, unless the Swedish authorities are interested in a solution to this delicate problem, which long ago crossed the boundary of decency and proportion.

How could this happen? Closure decision was very informed and made ​​by an experienced chief prosecutor. The decision to resume the inquiry, however, were less well-considered, which is particularly regrettable in light of all that subsequently occurred. The thing is in addition to depreciation decisions in cases of suspected sexual changed extra widely depending on all the controversy that has been surrounding these crimes.This motto has been that all stones should be reversed, with the result that even stones in which nothing interesting can be expected to conceal themselves will turn - only to minimize the risk of criticism from the media.

By the preliminary investigation has been leaked and is available online have anyone the opportunity to form an opinion about the evidence state.And I think to get with decent skills in evidence evaluation sees the case as anything other than a depreciation case. The women are heard and no further investigative steps remain. It is highly unlikely that Assange at another hearing will say something that makes it possible to prosecute him. It is therefore incomprehensible what the prosecutor expects he will say. The interview is therefore completely unnecessary. The situation between Assange and the women mostly involving disagreements about the use of condoms - a type of litigation that are not usually decided in our courts.

If your case applied a man living in Sweden had no major damage has been done. He had been questioned again and then returned preliminary investigation would have closed. But now there was not anybody who was a suspect and no one could imagine how the future would turn out. From now began to the circus, prestige made her entrance and the prosecutor painted himself into a corner. There, she finds herself still and unfortunately she brought a large part of the Swedish judicial system that is now ashamed for over three years.

As soon as it became clear that Assange was not prepared to voluntarily go to Sweden should the prosecutor have made sure that he was tried in London. If that had been the international prestige loss to Sweden has become limited if she immediately after the hearing closed down the investigation. No one outside the legal sphere had then imagined that the hearing was totally unnecessary. But instead of this solution, the prosecution has chosen to assert that the hearing must be held in Sweden in the event it would be necessary with prosecution. This had been a real stance on proof of state have been different.

Because of all the highly unlikely tours of the matter, it has developed into something quite exceptional and want to terminate the authorization required to also do something truly exceptional. And everything indicates that it may be worth the price. Only obstinacy and continued prestige of thinking can be a hindrance.

What can be done? Jo, the Prosecutor should be on its own initiative (ex officio) reverse the decision to reopen the investigation, revoke the detention order and withdraw the arrest warrant.

Now someone might say that such a radical procedure would make it impossible for the two women to have their case as plaintiffs proceedings.Even at that point, imagine an unconventional solution. The state should therefore by grace (ex gratia) pay the damages that could become relevant if Assange is prosecuted and convicted for the crimes he has been detained. Thus one should reasonably be able to avoid any allegations that the women had been sidelined by the judiciary. This solution is appealing, not least in view of the State's responsibility for the situation and the fact that women undeservedly suffered a well publicized injury.

What will be the effect? ​​The Swedish judicial system will certainly again be criticized sharply. But then the criticism died down, it is likely that voices will be heard which maintains that Sweden finally made a wise decision - especially when one considers how the option could have looked like.

Furthermore, Sweden by such conduct face-saving Britain to some extent contributed to the bizarre situation by making it possible for Assange to flee to Ecuador's embassy. And Assange could leave the embassy as a free man and not have to spend the next 27 years there.

ROLF HILL ​​BRANCH

Former prosecutor

https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fopinion%2Fbrannpunkt%2Fdags-for-sverige-att-avsluta-fallet-assange_8887418.svd