The US/Sweden agreement
by Eva Blum-Dumontet
Next Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court will officially release its decision regarding Julian Assange’s extradition to Sweden to respond to allegations of sexual offences, while no charge has been placed yet.
However if the founder of Wikileaks gets extradited Sweden may not be the final destination of this long legal journey.
Indeed in March 14th 1983 – while the Cold War was still dividing the world and influencing political and diplomatic decisions – Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States – signed a treaty with Sweden in order to “make more effective the Extradition Convention signed at Washington October 24, 1961,” in other words to facilitate the extradition of individuals considered criminals or potential criminals by the United States and Sweden.
This treaty would force Sweden to hand Julian Assange over to the United States, if the US was to ask Julian Assange’s extradition. Indeed, Article I states that “each Contracting State undertakes to surrender to the other (…) persons found in its territory who are sought for the purpose of prosecution, who have been found guilty of committing an offense, or who are wanted for the enforcement of a sentence.”
This treaty also applies to anyone suspected of “conspiring in, attempting, preparing for, or participating in, the commission of an offense.”
Hence a simple request from the United States would lead to Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States.
Technically the United States does not have to wait for Sweden to sort out the sexual offence allegations. Article VI(b) indeed mentions that someone prosecuted in the requested state (in Assange’s case Sweden) can be handed over to the requesting country (in this case the US) for the prosecution and may be handed back to the requested state after the decision has been taken, following an agreement decided upon by the two states.
With this framework the US could ask Sweden for Assange upon his arrival and after being prosecuted in the US for espionnage, the US and Sweden would decide whether he should be sent back to Sweden to eventually sort out the sexual offense allegations.
Article XII of the treaty could also have a decisive influence in the coming days – if Julian Assange were to be extradited to Sweden. The article indeed allows the provisional arrest of someone whose extradition has been requested. Interpol is in this case asked to intervene.
For more info on Julian Assange’s extradition to Sweden, take a look at Justice for Assange.
Understanding the Wikileaks Grand Jury will be live tweeting from the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Check out the blog or our twitter account (@wlgrandjury) for frequent updates starting from 8:30.
Understanding the Wikileaks Grand Jury 
Reblogged this on NonviolentConflict.
Sweden may however never conduct extradition of individuals if there is the slightest possibility that the crimes in question are punishable by death penalty in the recieving nation. This is regardless of other treaties.
Since Assange in USA is wanted for espionage and possibly even “terrorism” it is thus likley that Sweden according to their law can not extradite him.
In the quote in the fourth paragraph above, why do you omit the very important part ” subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention”? Also the convention states that extradition can only take place if the offense is punishable in both countries.
So, is espionage against the US (which I assume is what the US claims Assange is guily of) a punishable offence in Sweden. I think not!
Sweden extradidted to Egyptians from Sweden to torture in Egypt in 2010 – We don’t obey our own laws so don’t count on it when big brother USA comes knockin at our door for Assange.
Johan; well, it is a big different in sending a few unknown egyptians in secret to Nato and doing the same with a pale world famous guy. Sorry, but that is how it works. People know about Assange. People didnt know about the egyptians (and of course they where dark, probably muslims and we all know that means that they are terrorists…) Sad but true, thats the attitude among the public.
Some medias called Assange “Hacker”. Really ?
What about the Flame (and Stuxnet/Duqu) spyware/virus developped by the US government (NSA & CIA) and Israel ?
Been active for almost 5 years, for spying/stealing documents, damaging installations.
How do people call this ?
Really i mean.
And you call Assange a hacker ? He received informations from the outside.
Assange received these leaks because the US government can’t secure its own systems. Who is guilty ?
The law, treaties, the wording ect. is one thing, how they are implemented and interpreted in practice, is something else. Two different things. If the law was so clearl, so precise, so easy to understand, it’s arguable that we wouldn’t need courts, judges, juries, or, heaven forbid, lawyers! We could all in legal disputes just go to a big book of law and there we’d find the answers we required. Obviously that’s not what we do. It’s more complicated than what’s written down. Words are not reality. So regardless of what the wording of the laws are regarding extradition from Sweden, these rules or words can easily be bent to satisfy the requirements of power and politics. The law doesn’t exist in a theoretical vacuum, but in political reality.