It would make sense if you had any familiarity what so ever with how prosecution happens in non-common law states.
In Sweden you can be arrested for 'questioning' if you're a 'likely suspect'. People who are arrested for crimes that carry prison penalties longer then 1 year can be extradited through the European Arrest Warrant, rape as it happens has 4 years and qualifies.
Obviously it's not proven, that's why he's extradited for "questioning" so he can be prosecuted in court, not jailing! The proving part is done once he's in court.
Also, how exactly is US jurisdiction relevant to an Extradition from the UK to Sweden over a crime done in Sweden? You're making no sense.
It does not. I suggest you read it again and try to find any quotation that supports your position.
Furthermore, even if it did Joce640k would still be incorrect since he was whining about the Interpol red notice and not the EAW, they're rather different things.
He's also notably incorrect about the maximum penalty (4 years as stated repeatedly elsewhere).
"The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order."
A Swedish Prosecutor is a Competent Authority in European Law.
The Swedish definition of rape is sex without consent. The girls consented to sex with the provision that a condom was used, a condom wasn't used so it was non-consentual.
I'm not quite sure why you think Wikipedia is the place to look for what Interpol can and can not legally do.
What part of WIDEST POSSIBLE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE do you have troubles comprehending? Interpol is involved because Swedish Police can't arrest someone in Britain, so they need to ask British police to do that for them, Interpol is the organisation through which they send such requests.
No, it isn't. In fact not even the embassy itself is considered sovereign soil under international diplomacy law. The Embassy is borrowed, not owned. Actually this creates interesting legal situations since -neither- countries laws apply inside the embassy.
Furthermore neither Brittish nor International law recognises vehicles as under diplomatic immunity.
Even further, it's the host country, not the foreign one that has to accept applications for diplomatic immunity
There's literally no reason to -ever- stream an entirely different movie just to have captions. If your streaming software is remotely sane it already supports subtitles as a separate data stream trivially toggled on/off at the client side, even if that's not supported you can just send the captions separately as an overlay.
The reason you're confused is because you're trying to find a direct analogue for 'charged' when there isn't any.
The way things work is that the police investigate a crime, and once they find a suspect they will inform him about their suspicions and ask him to come in for questioning.
This questioning can legally only be done physically in person, not by email, not by telephone, not by video-conference. If you do not come voluntarily then they will arrest you and bring you in for questioning instead.
After questioning you will then either be released (minor crime or suspicions withdrawn) or jailed (major crime or just afraid you'll flee the country) at which point the prosecutor will take the case to court. As you can imagine the jailing part of that gets really rather complicated if you try to do it through teleconference.
Sweden is a very bureaucratic country, this means that if procedure states things are to be done in this order, then they will be done in this order and few if any exceptions will ever be made for any reason.
You're confused, because 'charged' does not mean what you think it means in the Swedish justice system.
In the Swedish System 'charged' is the step where they take you before a court to get judged and sentenced. Before they can do that they obviously need to finish their investigation which includes questioning the subject.
ZOMG, legal procedure looks different in different countries, stop the presses!
You really need to read that court document, you're looking like a frothing idiot in your ignorance. You're accusing one of the consistently top ranked countries in the world in all the corruption indexes of being more corrupt then your own.
How exactly is this a bullshit use of the European Arrest Warrant Legislation? I suggest you read the UK Supreme Court decision and realise this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to be used, you're just confused because non-common law systems do not work like common law systems.
Allowing him to leave the country anywhere but Sweden could cause -enourmous- damage to the very foundations of UKs cooperation with the EU.
The odds off Ecuador actually granting the asylum are probably slim to none, just look at their actual statement: "The decision to consider Mr Assangeâ(TM)s application for protective asylum should in no way be interpreted as the Government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden."
They're obviously aware that granting the asylum would ruin their relations with the entirety of the EU, and probably sink their economy. They're merely going through the due process steps.
In the Swedish legal system you have to be questioned before you can be charged. Additonally in the European legal system you can't be extradited to a third country while already extradited.
The Economics prize isn't even a Nobel Prize in the first place, its proper name is: Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
Slashdot Mirror
It would make sense if you had any familiarity what so ever with how prosecution happens in non-common law states.
In Sweden you can be arrested for 'questioning' if you're a 'likely suspect'. People who are arrested for crimes that carry prison penalties longer then 1 year can be extradited through the European Arrest Warrant, rape as it happens has 4 years and qualifies.
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Obviously it's not proven, that's why he's extradited for "questioning" so he can be prosecuted in court, not jailing! The proving part is done once he's in court.
Also, how exactly is US jurisdiction relevant to an Extradition from the UK to Sweden over a crime done in Sweden? You're making no sense.
http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices
Yes, the law is quite a lot longer then that.
You can read it yourself here:
https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6
My definition of rape is the legal definition of rape.
-Proving- rape is a completely different matter and I don't quite understand how you can confuse the two.
Also you appear to be confused, it was Eva Finné who dropped the case based on lack of evidence. It is Marianne Ny who then reopened it because she's specialised in sex crimes and felt she would be able to prosecute it.
They are proceeding for an offence, it's just that the Swedish procedures are different then the ones that you are used to so you are confused.
It does not. I suggest you read it again and try to find any quotation that supports your position.
Furthermore, even if it did Joce640k would still be incorrect since he was whining about the Interpol red notice and not the EAW, they're rather different things.
He's also notably incorrect about the maximum penalty (4 years as stated repeatedly elsewhere).
"The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order."
A Swedish Prosecutor is a Competent Authority in European Law.
What the heck are you on about?
The Swedish definition of rape is sex without consent. The girls consented to sex with the provision that a condom was used, a condom wasn't used so it was non-consentual.
Article 2.1
Though don't mind me bursting your bubble.
I'm not sure what you think you linked, but what you did link is a request for discussion on proportionality of EAW's.
For someone trying to argue that facts are on your side, you're making a poor job of presenting your facts.
I'm not quite sure why you think Wikipedia is the place to look for what Interpol can and can not legally do.
What part of WIDEST POSSIBLE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE do you have troubles comprehending?
Interpol is involved because Swedish Police can't arrest someone in Britain, so they need to ask British police to do that for them, Interpol is the organisation through which they send such requests.
I don't know what constitution you've been reading, but it's not the Interpol one.
Britain didn't bend over backwards. They complied with the EU extradition treaty.
No, it isn't. In fact not even the embassy itself is considered sovereign soil under international diplomacy law. The Embassy is borrowed, not owned. Actually this creates interesting legal situations since -neither- countries laws apply inside the embassy.
Furthermore neither Brittish nor International law recognises vehicles as under diplomatic immunity.
Even further, it's the host country, not the foreign one that has to accept applications for diplomatic immunity
That... Why would you do that?
There's literally no reason to -ever- stream an entirely different movie just to have captions. If your streaming software is remotely sane it already supports subtitles as a separate data stream trivially toggled on/off at the client side, even if that's not supported you can just send the captions separately as an overlay.
The reason you're confused is because you're trying to find a direct analogue for 'charged' when there isn't any.
The way things work is that the police investigate a crime, and once they find a suspect they will inform him about their suspicions and ask him to come in for questioning.
This questioning can legally only be done physically in person, not by email, not by telephone, not by video-conference. If you do not come voluntarily then they will arrest you and bring you in for questioning instead.
After questioning you will then either be released (minor crime or suspicions withdrawn) or jailed (major crime or just afraid you'll flee the country) at which point the prosecutor will take the case to court. As you can imagine the jailing part of that gets really rather complicated if you try to do it through teleconference.
Sweden is a very bureaucratic country, this means that if procedure states things are to be done in this order, then they will be done in this order and few if any exceptions will ever be made for any reason.
You're confused, because 'charged' does not mean what you think it means in the Swedish justice system.
In the Swedish System 'charged' is the step where they take you before a court to get judged and sentenced. Before they can do that they obviously need to finish their investigation which includes questioning the subject.
ZOMG, legal procedure looks different in different countries, stop the presses!
You really need to read that court document, you're looking like a frothing idiot in your ignorance. You're accusing one of the consistently top ranked countries in the world in all the corruption indexes of being more corrupt then your own.
Because, yet again, as a matter of process the next step is (potentially) charging you, which requires them to have you in custody.
This is standard procedure.
Because as a matter of process you have to be questioned before you're charged.
How exactly is this a bullshit use of the European Arrest Warrant Legislation? I suggest you read the UK Supreme Court decision and realise this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to be used, you're just confused because non-common law systems do not work like common law systems.
Allowing him to leave the country anywhere but Sweden could cause -enourmous- damage to the very foundations of UKs cooperation with the EU.
The odds off Ecuador actually granting the asylum are probably slim to none, just look at their actual statement:
"The decision to consider Mr Assangeâ(TM)s application for protective asylum should in no way be interpreted as the Government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden."
They're obviously aware that granting the asylum would ruin their relations with the entirety of the EU, and probably sink their economy. They're merely going through the due process steps.
In the Swedish legal system you have to be questioned before you can be charged.
Additonally in the European legal system you can't be extradited to a third country while already extradited.
What? No,
The Economics prize isn't even a Nobel Prize in the first place, its proper name is:
Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel