Melzers rapport med mycket bisarra angrepp på Sverige, i princip tar han JA:s ord rakt av.
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMRe...File?gId=34778
Bl.a.
Citat:
a) Prolonged arbitrary confinement by the United Kingdom and Sweden: All records available to me show that Mr. Assange voluntarily and consistently cooperated with the Swedish police and prosecutors, both during his presence in Sweden in 2010 and after he sought refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, in relation to the allegations of sexual offences which had been made against him. However, there is compelling evidence that Swedish and British prosecuting authorities, through concerted actions and omissions, have deliberately created and maintained a long-term situation rendering Mr. Assange unable to travel to Sweden for additional questioning, and to comply with British bail conditions, without simultaneously having to expose himself to the materially unrelated risk of onward extradition or surrender to the United States and, thereby, to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights.
Han samarbetade bara inledningsvis i Sverige. Sen gjorde han sig otillgänglig när MN skulle förhöra honom igen. Det är helt absurt att hävda att han samarbetade under tiden på ambassaden, det handlade om obstruktion ända fram till nedläggning av förundersökningen!
Citat:
As has been accurately determined by the UN WGAD in its decision of 4 December 2015, this situation effectively exposed Mr. Assange to prolonged, involuntary and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and also deprived him of adequate dental and medical care for a period of almost seven years. As my mandate has previously observed, the longer a situation of arbitrary confinement lasts, and the less the affected person can do to influence their own situation, the more intense their mental and emotional suffering will become, and the higher the likelihood that the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been breached (A/HRC/37/50, §27).
UNWGAD:s icke juridiskt bindande åsikt har visat sig vara ett skämt. Sverige och UK är bundna av europeisk lagstiftning kring mänskliga rättigheter och inte av en bisarr åsikt som bygger enbart på JA:s partsinlaga.
Citat:
b) Public shaming and judicial harassment by Sweden: Records made available to me show that, in 2010, after Mr. Assange had fully cooperated with Swedish police and prosecution concerning allegations of sexual misconduct made against him, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm stated that “I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and closed the investigation, determining that the “conduct alleged by (the complainant) disclosed no crime at all". Upon appeal, the investigation was re-opened by a different prosecutor shortly thereafter, reportedly after the statement of the complainant had been modified to include more prejudicial language. The mass media were informed, resulting in widespread dissemination of a distorted and misleading narrative portraying Mr. Assange as a “rape” suspect, thus suggesting a violent offence far more serious than the facts alleged by the complainants themselves. In reality, the most serious allegation made against Mr. Assange seems to involve the predictably unresolvable question of whether, during consensual intercourse with the complainant, and unbeknownst to her, Mr. Assange had ripped his condom intentionally, or merely accidentally.
Alla vet om oskuldspresumtionen och att JA bara är misstänkt. Men han ÄR misstänkt för våldtäkt och har varit i snart 9 år. Mycket märkligt att han refererar till vad första åklagaren beslutade, det är helt irrelevant efter överprövningen. Återigen tar han JA:s argument rakt av!
Citat:
For almost nine years, the Swedish authorities have consistently maintained, revived and fueled the “rape”-suspect narrative against Mr. Assange, despite the legal requirement of anonymity, despite the mandatory presumption of innocence, despite the objectively unrealistic prospect of a conviction, and despite contradicting evidence suggesting that, in reality, the complainants never intended to report a sexual offence against Mr. Assange, but that they had been pressured (“railroaded”) into doing so by the Swedish police and had subsequently decided to “sell” their story to the tabloid press.
Svensk media liksom åklagaren har rapporterat fakta. Han ÄR misstänkt för våldtäkt enligt svensk lagstiftning och SW anser sig ha blivit utsatt för våldtäkt. Melzer är en pajas!
Citat:
The resulting reputational harm to Mr. Assange was perpetuated and exacerbated by the Swedish prosecutor’s persistent rejection, contrary to standard practice in many other cases, of all possibilities which would have enabled Mr. Assange to respond to questions of Swedish prosecution without simultaneously having to expose himself to the risk of refoulement to the United States. At no point did the Swedish prosecuting authorities make any attempt to prevent, contain or redress reputational harm to Mr. Assange, or to protect his human dignity by publicly rejecting and rectifying obvious exaggerations and misrepresentations of the allegations made against him.
Sverige har inget ansvar för JA:s rykte och som faktiskt baseras på hans helt egna handlingar.
Citat:
The announcement of 13 May 2019 that the Swedish prosecuting authorities had re-opened the preliminary investigation into the same allegations made already in 2010 against Mr. Assange compounds my serious concern that, in this case, the “rape” suspect narrative appears to be misused to deliberately undermine his reputation and credibility and, ultimately, to facilitate his indirect refoulement from the United Kingdom to the United States.
Det här tar väl ändå priset! Han ÄR misstänkt för våldtäkt enligt svensk lagstiftning och SW anser sig ha blivit utsatt för våldtäkt. Pajas Melzer får helt enkelt ta och studera hur lagstiftningen ser ut. Men nu när JA inte längre gömmer sig på ambassaden så finns det ju en chans för JA att rentvå sig efter rättegång i Sverige. Inget tyder dock på att JA är intresserad av detta.
Sverige och UK borde vara tillgängliga för kommentarer. Varför pratar inte Melzer med Sverige och UK innan han lägger fram sina åsikter? Det är helt oseriöst att bara ta JA:s argument rakt av. Sverige och UK är trots allt demokratier och rankas mycket högt i världen angående mänskliga rättigheter och hur rättsväsendet fungerar. Melzer borde åtminstone ha fråga Sverige och UK om deras bild av det hela. Snacka om oseriöst!