Slashdot Mirror

Sweden has a law like that. Hopefully other countries do as well.

"Thus it cannot be done anywhere else than in Sweden."

The Swedish Supreme Court disagrees with you: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337

"where a Swedish prosecutor have made an official questioning in another country- they might go there and question witnesses"

Marianne Ny's official position is that she is questioning for investigation, not prosecution. At lest that's her current claim. How is it that you know Marianne Ny's position than she herself does?

No, here in Sweden we don't allow these kinds of interview to be conducted via video conference

You need to read your own law, dude. According to that ruling by the Swedish Supreme Court, if a subject is abroad and cooperating, video conferencing is appropriate. Up until very recently Assange was inarguably cooperative.

Yes, the law is quite a lot longer then that.

You can read it yourself here:
https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6

It's regulated in law 1998:1593. In short, it has to be a community whose main purpose is practice of religion, it has to have a stature and board, and it has to have sermons. Several organisations falls short on the last point, for example the secular Humanisterna.

It's the law, combined with cases from Domstolsverket (Courts Administration). He has a tech description to:

I'll try to translate:
he fetches laws from the Cabinet Office web server, which he converts into XML (XHTML2 med RDFa)

He then retrieves cases from the Courts Administration FTP server, also converts this into XML. (via words "save as HTML", and then converting).

He then compiles all the meta-data from all the documents into RDF -graph. This is used in conjunction with style sheets to create XHTML1.0 pages, ready for displaying in a browser.

finally, indexes and Table of contents are created and the result is hosted on Apache-servers. The code is written in python, with parts in XSLT.

Impressive, impressive work. Which landed him a job in e-gov (I hope he keeps the law-project going!)

Technologically, he has a description of what he does. I'll try to translate:
he fetches laws from the Cabinet Office web server, which he converts into XML (XHTML2 med RDFa)

He then retrieves cases from the Courts Administration FTP server, also converts this into XML. (via words "save as HTML", and then converting).

He then compiles all the meta-data from all the documents into RDF -graph. This is used in conjunction with style sheets to create XHTML1.0 pages, ready for displaying in a browser.

finally, indexes and Table of contents are created and the result is hosted on Apache-servers. The code is written in python, with parts in XSLT.

Impressive, impressive work. Which landed him a job in e-gov (I hope he keeps the law-project going!)

It is perfectly fine to use any evidence you may have, no matter how you got hold of it, in court.

The exception being, of course, things that a person have said to their doctor or lawyer, since they are forbidden to talk about what their patients say.

Read chapter 35, paragraph 1 in law 1942:740, "rättegångsbalken" (law of prosecution? means something like that), in the swedish book of law if you do not believe me. You can find the law in question here, although it's obviously in swedish.

So, who was misinformative again?