The founder of Wikileaks is trying to prevent his extradition from England to Sweden.
The second day of the hearing in London to decide the validity of the request for extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden has not been very profitable. Before the judge of the court at Belmarsh in east London decides to add a third day of deliberations, the cons-examination of key witness for the defense exposed a serious flaw in the scenario defended by lawyers of the founder of WikiLeaks site.
Since the European arrest warrant has been filed by the Swedish court last October to two complaints of rape and sexual assault, Julian Assange has always claimed he had left Sweden on September 27 without knowing it There was wanted for questioning. A detail that largely determines its good faith in this case, largely complicated by the context of sometimes violent reactions caused by the release of thousands of U.S. diplomatic dispatches its website Wikileaks.
Proving a flaw
Called Monday afternoon to the witness stand by the defenders of London Julian Assange, his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig was first started by supporting the idea that his client had repeatedly offered to talk to Justice from the Swedish beginning of September, without the prosecutor in charge of the case, Marianne Ny, not looking at him. The facts which are alleged to Assange occurred in mid-August, and the Swedish court has first considered the case did not deserve to be prosecuted before the Attorney Marianne Ny does appeal the first decision and recovery procedure itself.
Bjorn Hurtig said he had learned that on September 30, three days after the departure of Assange to England, that his client was under a warrant of arrest in Sweden. This statement for the thesis advanced by other witnesses that morning and the day before, that the procedure followed by the prosecutor was highly unusual, if not contrary to the rules.
The point is important for the defense of Assange, since outside of possible violations of human rights, hence the statements on the risk of extradition to the United States and a possible detention at Guantanamo, the only how to invalidate a European arrest warrant is to prove a defect in the procedure followed by the prosecution.
Mrs. Clare Montgomery, the British lawyer representing the Swedish court was right to the point in its cons-examination of the Swedish lawyer, asking him whether he had received a text message from the Attorney Stockholm September 22. After initially mumbled "I do not remember it," Bjorn Hurtig then checked on his phone and found he had actually received a message calling Assange for questioning by police on September 28. "I tried to warn Julian Assange on his laptop, but I have not managed to reach", then defended Bjorn Hurtig. On 27 September, a day before his appointment with the police, Julian Assange flew to London. For Mrs. Montgomery, it was not a coincidence: the boss is gone Wikileaks in time to escape to the Swedish court.