August 24, 2012 at 21:32, Updated: August 25, 2012 at 06:48
To interrogate Assange in England is still quite possible - and need not be in conflict with the process has already begun. It writes lawyer Hans Strandberg, who has experience in interrogations abroad in terms of economic crime.
“With the consent of the Ecuadorian Embassy Assange would probably take the opportunity to try to resolve the difficult situation you are in. His Strandberg “
The handling of the Julian Assange affair has unfortunately become very costly to Sweden by the country's credibility as a rule, has been seriously questioned. Sweden fulfills course by far the requirements to be a rule, but because of the negative press that Sweden received around the world spreading an image that can take a long time to correct. It's not about whether the criticisms leveled against the Swedish legal system is justified or not, but how it, wrong or right, presented and perceived around the world.
Does it then had to put Sweden in this situation?
Swedish authorities have certainly not made any formal errors, but applied the framework so that it can be applied according to its terms and British authorities have done their trials on this basis. The results in the form of decisions on extradition seems obvious.
The error has been made is that the Swedish authorities - prosecuting authority - chosen by virtue of the applicable provision, speak the language of force, instead of choosing a more sensible approach. The very obvious in the situation that has existed had been carrying out interrogations with Assange in Britain and then conveniently on the Swedish Embassy. This would allow the prosecutor to obtain the information needed to assess whether the notifications should be prosecuted or not, and then if Assange did not voluntarily appeared in Sweden, ask him in custody and on that basis to request his extradition to Sweden. So on and after the prosecution.
What more could justify such an approach would be to study reasonably must be afflicted with some doubts because a former prosecutor put a preliminary investigation.
Question has been asked why Assange should be allowed to make a "sour cream" and get to be interrogated in the UK. This approach rests in my opinion on a misunderstanding. The target of a criminal investigation must be to come to a conclusion about a person is prosecuted or not, that is, if the prosecutor feels able to expect a conviction. It's not about that at all times to the most intrusive power was available to him. By choosing this approach has now happened, the investigation has been delayed, and will be further delayed, probably even years while the situation has created serious international complications. One can also ask why this choice is made, and a thought can not free themselves from is that the combination of a public person and sex crimes made to the prosecution dropped the press to show the action.
Which option has then been available? After more than 25 years have been working as a defense lawyer in financial criminal in many cases international elements, I have my own living experience of how wise prosecutors able to solve similar problems faster and in a very efficient manner. Among the international elements has often been that the suspect is Swedish and either live abroad or for other reasons is abroad. The situation has often been such that it has been clear that if the suspect would appear in Sweden for questioning he would likely be arrested and detained. The obligation to appear at a polisförhörpåverkas obviously not of such circumstances, but the reality is another.
If a person who considers himself innocent, know that an appearance at a police interrogation in Sweden leading to the arrest and probable arrest, it seems obvious that he hesitates. This certainly appears to be more reasonable if you also know that detention often occurs after a very perfunctory trial where the prosecutor very often get their way and get the suspect in custody.
Even in large highly complex economic criminal, if not especially in these, the court / judge usually on the prosecutor's line, after a presentation of the investigation and the suspicions that are utterly perfunctory and that the defense and the accused are generally given the opportunity to study only shortly before the hearing.
Against this background, it is not strange if a person who considers himself innocent hesitating to appear for questioning in Sweden on invitation. Moreover, if it behaves in the way that the suspect perceive a risk that he will be extradited to another state, even if in reality no basis for this risk, this is an eminently understandable human behavior.
The procedure I mean the prosecutor should be resorted instead been to accept, as shown by the newspaper, Assange's offer to participate in the hearing in London. He should then be able to make its assessment.
This procedure has been applied over the long time I myself worked. I have participated in a number of hearings held at the Swedish Embassy in London and at embassies around Europe. In this way, the investigations could be carried forward and it has also on several occasions led to the prosecutor for questioning able to close the preliminary investigation, which occurred in such thrusters and Obol-investigations. That is to say the suspect escaped being detained for longer or shorter periods and then be declared innocent.
The concern now is of course that you can not turn back the clock. Too much has already happened and too much prestige is involved. Today to believe that Swedish authorities with a British extradition decision in the hand would choose to go out to meet Assange seems highly unlikely.
However, if one devotes idea for another minute, then it is concluded that such an approach need not be in conflict with the procedure already started. He might, after questioning conclude that there are grounds for prosecution and also bring such a Sweden has hardly been in a worse position, while the opposite result of the interrogation, ie investigation closed down, would put an end to this whole sad history and questioning of Sweden as being a rule.
It may be doubtful whether Ecuador allow a hearing on its embassy after giving Assange political asylum, but with the consent of Assange would probably accept and take the opportunity to try to resolve the difficult situation you are in.
HIS STRANDBERG - lawyer