Sweden x Assange: Julian Assange in Court. London, 12&13 July, 2011 on Vimeo

Sweden x Assange: Julian Assange in Court. London, 12&13 July, 2011 on Vimeo

JULIAN ASSANGE SHOULD BE FREE, BECAUSE:
HIS ARREST WARRANT WAS INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, DESCRIBED DIFFERENT CONDUCT THAN THE ALLEGED BY THE TWO WOMEN; THERE WERE ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO QUESTION HIM AND THE ARREST WARRANT WAS NOT ISSUED BY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.

Argument 1: JA Alleged conduct by two women do not reflect alleged conduct in arrest warrant
• The original police complaint describes different conduct than the alleged conduct in arrest warrant.
A MISREPRESENTATION OF CONDUCT –i.e. if documents do not match- IS SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the police report and the European Arrest warrant just don’t match and the allegations in the European Arrest Warrant are different and more serious than those alleged by the Swedish women. That is enough to invalidate the arrest warrant.
Argument 2: Julian has not been even charged
ONLY ACCUSED PEOPLE CAN BE EXTRADITED VIA EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT FOR PROSECUTION, NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SUSPICION IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR EXTRADITION.
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the European Arrest Warrant was issued by a Swedish prosecutor for other legal purposes: interrogation. He has not been accused of any crime and there are not yet charges against him in Sweden.
JULIAN ASSANGE CASE IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL AN DISPROPORTIONATED because the prosecutor ignored Mutual Legal Assistance mechanisms to interrogate him in the UK, the prosecutor also ignored electronic mechanisms to interrogate him by using videoconference or other digital tools available and accepted as valid by Swedish courts. Instead, his freedom of movement and other related freedoms have been restricted for more than 200 days, staying almost 2 weeks in solitary confinement last December and almost seven months under house arrest with a strict curfew, electronic tagging and the duty to sign a book every day in a police station.

Argument 3: European Arrest Warrant was vague, rights restricted
• Prosecutor issued order saying that offences occurred on August 18 or on any of the days before or after that day.
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IS VAGUE AND THE PERSON CANNOT HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF THE NATURE AND EXTEND OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the uncertainty around the dates when the allegations were committed invalidates the arrest warrant.
Argument 4: Extradition arrest warrant was not issued by a judicial authority

• Judicial authority and mutual recognition principle was not respected.
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT WAS NOT ISSUED BY A COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the person who signed the request for extradition is not a judicial authority, BUT a public prosecutor. A prosecutor is by definition, not a judge, because the figure of a prosecutor is partisan. In contrast, a judicial authority is independent and impartial. The European Arrest Warrant should be issued by a judicial authority exercising recognisably judicial functions in an independent manner. A European Arrest Warrant was issued by a Swedish prosecutor on 26th November, 2010 and was neither evaluated nor ratified by a Judge. Therefore, the EAW is void.