Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on toture, has been given the Swiss online publication "Die Republik" a quite disturbing interview about Julian Assange at the beginning of February. Melzer is from Switzerland as well as the publication, so the interview is in German.
The short version of it is that according to Melzer Assange was always in touch with the law authorities, testified and willing to testify. But at some point they ignored it completely, fabricated false evidence against him with only goal: to set an example and break this man as revenge for what he disclosed with Wikileaks, because the USA as main driving force wanted to get him badly, and Sweden and the UK, also later Ecuador collaborated like good little minions, dismissing all law.
And now for the long story... all opinions below are Melzer's now out of the interview:
1. He had no personal sympathy left for Assange. Assange's lawyers had to ask him several times for support, before he looked at the documents they provided to him out of professional curiosity. Immediately he came to the conclusion that there's something very fishy, and decided to take the case and look into it.
2. On the question if he should be officially involved as UN special reporter: yes, because of three reasons. a) Assange disclosed evidence for systematic torture; but instead of the offenders Assange has been chased instead. b) Assange shows signs of psychological torture. c) Assange could be tortured to death in the USA.
3. The reason why he came to the conclusion that something is clearly not going the normal way was that Assange has been for over nine years in a police investigation on the charge of rape, but a trial before court was never opened. Offenders can be judged in absence, and this clearly is more than unusual.
4. Assange was in touch with the Swedish law authorities, and tried to deliver his view on the charges. The Swedish authorities never replied to this, they simply ignored it.
5. On the rape charges he thinks that they have been fabricated by the Swedish police for one reason: to get Assange.
a) The first supposed victim had consensual sex with Assange, but without condom. So she went to the police to get an answer to her question, if she could require a HIV test from Assange by law. The police took her complaint, rewrote it so that it was rape and told her that the attorny is going to arrest assange. She was so shocked about it that she refused to sign the protocol, and went home.
b) The second supposed victim also had sex with Assange, using a condom. She also told that during sexual intercourse Assange has sabotaged the condom in order to be leaking, so called stealthing which is indeed an offence. But the same woman told that she noticed this only after the sexual intercourse, which contradicts the first statement: if I did not notice it I cannot know that this has been done on purpose. On the condom which she gave the police was no DNA from Assange, or herself.
c) The events have been disclosed very fast by the public prosecution service mentioning Assange's name to a Swedish tabloid, which clearly is against the Swedish law. A few days after that the investigation has been closed by the leader of the prosecution service that the story itself was plausible, but there was no hard evidence for a delict.
d) After that the superior of the police woman ordered her to rewrite the testimony in such a way that it was part of a interrogation, and sign it. The emails of the Swedish Police are known by now and have been disclosed to the public.
=> What has been rewritten is unknown, because the documents are not there any longer on the computer. It's clear though that the statement has been rewritten without cooperation of the supposed victim in a way to construct a rape crime by the Swedish authorities, it's a false evidence.
6. Assange immediately called the police to deliver his statement; while the scandal was rolling they let him wait for 9 days. One charge has already been dismissed back then, the other was still ongoing. At the 30. August 2010 he went to the police station and talked to the police who ordered to fabricate false evidence. Assange told at the beginning of his interrogation that he is willing to talk, but does not want to have anything leaked to the Swedish press, which is his right and he was assured to. After he was done, the whole interrogation had been leaked again to the press.
7. Based on the rewritten testimony the investigations were reopened. The supposed rape victims suddenly had an assigned counsel, Claus Borgström, which was paid by Sweden. This man was a partner of former Swedish minister of justice Thomas Bodström who was known for deporting people without trial on behalf of US security authorities, handing them to the CIA who tortured those people then. Assange again wanted to make his statement, but the attorney always "had no time." Three weeks after that Assange's lawyer wrote that he needs to attend a conference in Berlin and wanted to know if Assange is allowed to leave the country. The prosecution office agreed in written form to it that Assange is allowed to leave the country for a short time.
=> At the same day when Assange left Sweden an arrest warrant against him had been issued. Stuff from him suddenly disappears, like laptops.
8. Assange traveled from Berlin to London, but was still in contact with the Swedish authorities. Assange also became aware of that a secret trial against him in the USA had been opened. T
his was not confirmed back then by the USA, but we do know by now that this is a fact. So from this point on Assange's lawyer said that Assange is willing to come to Sweden and make his testimony, but only by diplomatic assurance that Sweden will not extradite him to the USA.
=> This demand has never been met; Assange's lawyers offered while he was in the embassy of Ecuador over 30 times to Sweden that he will come over and testify, but only if they do agree to this demand. Sweden always replied that they must refuse, because there is no extradition sought by the USA.
9. Diplomatic demands to not extradite somebody to certain countries are a common practice; and happen all the time. Of course Sweden could have agreed to it easily; if a country really denies such a request there is not much faith left in the good will of such a country. Why on earth should Sweden not have been able to guarantee it? From a law perspective the USA were never involved in the rape charges against Assange in Sweden.
10. Even this demand has never been met, Assange was willing regardless to testify in London or by videolink. Both did never happen, although the UK and Sweden have even treaties in place that Assange could have just gone to a British police station and testify. Sweden and the UK used this possibility in 44 other cases during that time without problems, and only in Assange's case Sweden demanded that it is a must that he must go to Sweden in order to testify personally.
