It is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would gain everybody, including the injured parties. <\/p>\n
Thomas Olsson och Per E Samuelsson <\/p>\n
This is a misunderstanding. Assange only requests to be treated according to Swedish law. <\/p>\n
According to section 23, chapter 4, of the Swedish Procedural Code, a preliminary criminal investigation should be performed as quickly as possible and in such a way that the suspect is not unnecessarily inconvenienced. <\/p>\n
According to section 5 of the preliminary investigation code, an interrogation shall be held at such a time and place as can be expected to carry the least inconvenience for the investigated party. <\/p>\n
The significance of these rules is, that every preliminary investigation should be adapted to the situation in which the investigated party finds himself. <\/p>\n
Julian Assange stays at Ecuadors embassy in London since June 2012. The reason that he went there was a worry to be extradited to the US. That this worry is well founded is clear since American authorities have stated that a pre-investigation is ongoing regarding the publishments of Wikileaks. The seriousness of this became apparent during the trial against Chelsea (former Bradley) Manning who was conducted to 35 years in prison as alleged source to Wikileaks. <\/p>\n
To prevent that this risk of extradition is realized Ecuador has granted Julian Assange political asylum. Thus the somewhat unusual and to say the least an akward situation has occurred: A person is locked up in an embassay in Western Europe to avoid being prosecuted for having used his freedom of speech to critize, as a journalist, how the US conducts its war against Irak. <\/p>\n
According to Swedish law, the prosecutor is, as previously stated, obliged to adapt to Assanges situation and with this as a starting point, quickly press on with the investigation without causing unnecessary inconvienence to the ones involved. <\/p>\n
The next step in the investigation is to interrogate Assange. Such an interrogation can be held at the embassy in London but not in Sweden. But Marianne Ny refuses to go to London. Instead she does nothing. One would be hard pressed to find any rational reason for her passiveness. After the interrogation of Julian Assange the prosecutor can decide how to proceed. Drop the suspicions in whole are partly or move on to an indictment. Before the interrogation Marianne Ny can do nothing. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n