UN rules in favour of Assange

[Sarmatian]

We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?

Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.

So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?

Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.

So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.