By Dr Armando Popa, editor of SWEDHR Research & Reports

Deutsche Welle published recently an article authored by Matthias von Hein, on the new developments in the Swedish case against Julian Assange. In researching background information for his article, Mathias von Hein contacted the chairman of our organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) with an interview request.

The journalist sent later his questions, which SWEDHR answered on the 16 of August. The article was published in a German version [“Sex, Leaks und die schwedische Justiz“], a Spanish [“Sexo, filtraciones y la Justicia sueca“], and in a Portuguese version [“Wikileaks, Assange e a Justiça sueca“].

SWEDHR sourced the answers with a variety of materials, most of them analyses published recently in these columns, or chapters out of the book “Sweden Vs. Assange – Human Rights Issues“, published 2014 by Libertarian Books, Sweden.

The subject on why prosecutor Marianne Ny did suddenly decide in the Spring 2015 to interrogate Assange in London (or give the pretence that she wished to carry on the interrogation), has not been object of enough analysis in the international forum. The general comment halted around the fact that the Swedish prosecutor had made a 180 degrees turn on her position. But why? The SWEDHR chairman had assayed this rationale already on the 13th of March 2015:

“…prosecutor Marianne Ny, has now [this spring] announced she is ready to interrogate Assange in London, it is because the Swedish Supreme Court has recently decided [on request of Assage’s lawyers] to take up the case in view of ‘the conduct of the investigation and the proportionality principle’. This is unequivocally referred to the prosecutors’ conduct in carrying/not-carrying the investigation. And this in its turn anticipated the dismissed of the case by the Supreme Court.”(M Ferrada de Noli, “Why the Swedish prosecutor waited 5 YEARS to interrogate Assange? Political background.“ [See Ref. 6, below].

The news was generally received with much optimism. Even Swedish lawyers in the Assange defence team expressed that this was a “victory” for the Assange side. The official explanation – naturally, the one echoed by the Swedish media, later by the NATO media, etc.,finally gained acceptance. This deceptive rationale was that the “prescription time” for the crimes of which Assange has been accused (and never charged, we must insist) was to run out soon (and so it did); ergo, a questioning in London was an ultimate resource that Ny “had” to accept for the well being of the investigation. 

Research & Reports asked Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli on the opinion he gave to DW. He commented that his opinions were based mainly on theses in his article, “Why the Swedish prosecutor waited 5 YEARS to interrogate Assange? Political background”, and sent us the following transcription of the interview:

[Questions by Matthias von Hein (Recherche und Analyse Programmdirektion, Deutsche Welle) [DW]. Answers: Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli [MFN], chairman, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights.]

DW – “Do you think that Marianne Ny deliberately delayed the arrest warrant for Julian Asssange? And if so, why would she have done that? And: How does the EAW fit into the picture?”

MFN – “A true help that Swedish authorities wished by issuing the EAW on Julian Assange was to obtain a hampering of the WikiLeaks-exposures, which have denounced constitutional abuses perpetrated by the Swedish government. [1] An interrogation of Assange was never really pursued, for its implementation would have ended the case and hence a need of such an EAW. The ultimate aim of the Swedish EAW was not Assange, but WikiLeaks.

Corollary, the “status of limitations” formed part of the Swedish design in stalling the case. For there have never been ground for a case according to the Swedish legislation:

After a thorough examination of the police-investigation protocols, one Sweden’s most known criminal experts concluded in a Swedish Doctors for Human Rights’ publication that the accusations against Julian Assange would never have made a case in court. [2] International human-rights lawyers have reached an identical conclusion. [3] In fact, this also corresponds to the ruling by the chief prosecutor (Eva Finné) who dismissed the case already in 2010, [4] and after reviewing the same materials which Marianne Ny have had access to.

Marianne Ny re-opened then the case after a petition of the law firm Bordström & Borgström (the former Justice minister, and the former Gender Ombudsman, respectively), [5] hence knowing that it was a “no case”, legally speaking. If prosecutor Ny would have completed an interrogation with Assange while he was still in Sweden, and totally available, she would have been legally forced to close the case anew. She first allowed Assange to exit Sweden, and that was what made possible the “need” of a European Arresting Warrant (EAW) through Interpol. [6]

Thus, a conclusion by Swedish Doctors for Human Right is that the EAW had not as primary aim the summoning of Assange for an interrogation in Sweden, but to immobilize the activities of WikiLeaks by engineering the arresting of Assange in London. It has to bear in mind that the Swedish prosecution authority’s move was done only days after the US asked the few countries participating in the military occupation of Afghanistan under US-command to prosecute Assange. Of these countries only Sweden complied. [7]”

DW – “How appropriate or unusual is it to issue an Interpol red-note to arrest someone who has proved that he is willing to cooperate in the investigation in order to clear his name, and who is highly visible and not the least in hiding?”  

MFN – “Of course any manipulation of the red-note issuing is highly inappropriate. To the best of my knowledge, apart of the Assange case there is no any other case in which Swedish would have indulged in this abuse. Further, the EAW system is supposed to be activated by a court order, a judge, and not by a prosecutor – as it was instrumented by Sweden.”

DW – “Is there any connection between Mariane Ny and attorney Borgström and if so: what is it?”

MFN – As background, both prosecutor Marianne Ny and attorney Borgström have a record as militant radical feminists. I use “militant” in the meaning of displaying professional activities aimed to secure extreme feminist positions in matter of sex-offences legislation and procedures. For instance, Marianne Ny has advocated for the pre-trial detention ipso-facto of any man accused by any woman of a rape-suspected action. This even before any legal procedure would have started. This according to an article she published before her involvement in the Assange case.

Further, both prosecutor Marianne Ny and attorney Claes Borgström have been participating in the same committee appointed by the government to study the enhancing of scope and penalties in the Swedish sex-offences legislation. [8]”

References

[1] M Ferrada de Noli, Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues. Chapter “This Is Why”. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. pages 46 – 55.

[2] Dick Sundevall, Prosecutor’s behaviour in ‘case’ Assange questions Swedish principle of prosecutor-neutrality. SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 1., No 12, 3 April 2015

[3] Human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy, quoted by CNN: “The evidence would never have stood in in any court of law worthy of the name,” she said. “Why in all those five years did the Swedish Prosecution authorities fail to come to London to question Assange as was repeatedly offered?” In Ben Brumfield, “Some charges dropped, but Julian Assange’s legal troubles far from over”, CNN, 13 August 2015.

[4] M Ferrada de Noli, “In Search Of A Solution. Refuting Elisabeth Massi Fritz SvD statements on Assange case“. The Professors’ Blog, 7 February 2014.

[5] Former Justice minister Thomas Bordström has been reported to the Swedish parliament for his participation in the CIA extraordinary renditions authorized from Swedish territory. Former Gender Ombudsman Claes Borgström is a outspoken radical feminist which speaks on the “collective guilt” of men, and demanded all Swedish men should pay a tax for the inequalities women have had in historical Sweden.

[6] M Ferrada de Noli, Why the Swedish prosecutor waited 5 YEARS to interrogate Assange? Political background. The Professors’ Blog, 13 March 2015.

[7] M Ferrada de Noli, Anders Romelsjö, and Leif Elinder, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights: The real reasons why Assange has not been interrogated in London. An analysis of central human rights aspects in the foreign policy of Sweden. SWEDHR Research & Reports, Vol 2., N° 20, 22 July 2015.

[8] M Ferrada de Noli, Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues. Chapter “Duckpond in the Swedish Legal System”. pages 246 – 273. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014.