Timeline

Summarised timeline of main events in Sweden vs Assange

Español

Julian Assange has not been charged. He lost his liberty on 7 December 2010. The Swedish case is a ’preliminary investigation’. The prosecutor has not made a decision as to whether to charge him, or try him. Throughout, Julian has been willing to give his statement to Sweden, either by receiving officials in the United Kingdom or over telephone or video link, which is the routine method of carrying out questioning.

2010

February

US initiates WikiLeaks investigation, over a dozen federal government agencies involved, including the FBI, DoJ (who are now leading the investigation), with support of NSA and CIA and others.

April

Collateral Murder is released.

25 July

Afghan War Diaries published. US alleges WikiLeaks will imminently publish more mass leaks. FBI is reported to be operating in England in relation to WikiLeaks.

10 August

US media reports the US government is encouraging its allies to open criminal investigations against Assange and to prevent his freedom of movement.

August 12

Julian goes to Sweden to give talk about its military involvement in the Afghan war.

August 20

Two Swedish women ask police about compelling Julian to take an STD test. Over their protests, the police treat their visit as a report, and open an investigation. Text messages (SMS) from the phone of one of the women at the police station show she did ’not want to accuse him of anything’ that ’it was the police who made up the charges’, and told her friend “she felt railroaded by police. Julian’s name is disclosed to the tabloid press by the Swedish prosecution office.

August 21

The chief prosecutor now leading the investigation, Eva Finne drops the ’rape’ accusation, saying that the description of the events does not suggest any crime at all.

August 25

The chief prosecutor Eva Finne states that "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever"" and closes the preliminary investigation into "rape".

September 1

Prosecutor Marianne Ny, the 3rd prosecutor to lead the case over the course of 10 days, resurrects the investigation into ’lesser rape’ after politician Claes Borgstrom, who was running under a Social Democrat ticket for Justice Minister position becomes the legal representative for the two women (Borgstrom was previously most famous for playing a key role in the miscarriage of justice against Thomas Quick). He does dozens of interviews about the case in the run up to the elections. Borgstrom was later fired by the younger woman because, she claims, he pays more attention to the media than to his client. The role of ’legal representative’ of a claimant allows the lawyer to bill the state for press appearances. He estimated he had dedicated at least 80 hours of media in relation to Assange’s case by 2013, most of which were during the weeks leading up to the Swedish general election. He continues to represent the older woman of the two women, who is a politician and staffer for the Social Democrats (AA).

September 15

Prosecutor agrees in writing that Julian may leave Sweden to carry on with his work.

September 19

Sweden holds general elections- Claes Borgstrom is tipped to become the new Justice Minister if the Social Democrats win; AA (who is the older of the two women and a senior staffer/politician for the Social Democrats also runs for election as does Irmeli Krans, the police officer who interviewed SW (the younger woman) under a Social Democrat party ticket.

September 27

After spending five weeks waiting to be questioned in Sweden, and with the permission of the prosecutor, Julian leaves Sweden. His encrypted laptops are unlawfully seized from the ’restricted’ zone of Stockholm airport in an operation by Swedish intelligence, SAPO. Official documents show it did not reach the second scanner. They have not been returned and are suspected to have been passed on to the United States.

October 22

Iraq War Logs published.

20 November

Sweden issues Red Notice which Interpol posts on its front page.

28 November

Cablegate published.

6 December

UK authorities acknowledge European Arrest Warrant from Sweden.

7 December

Julian goes to police station, is put in prison until 16 December 2010. Then released on bail. He is placed under house arrest.

2011

Prosecutor still refuses to take Julian’s statement; the investigation has been frozen since 2010.

February

Julian challenges the validity of the European Arrest Warrant before the district court.

July

Julian takes his case to the Court of Appeal.

2012

Prosecutor still refuses to take Julian’s statement; the investigation has been frozen since 2010.

February

Julian takes his case to the UK Supreme Court.

June 14

Supreme Court decides the Swedish arrest warrant (EAW) is valid, based on an argument that the Court invalidates one year later. Julian is given 14 days to make an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

June 16

Swedish authorities challenge the Supreme Court’s 14 day window for Julian to apply to the ECHR, and attempt to reduce it from 14 days to 0.

June 19

Julian applies for protection from Ecuador, fearing that he is at risk of extradition to US from both United Kingdom and Sweden.

August 16

Julian is granted political asylum regarding the political prosecution being mounted in the United States in relation to WikiLeaks and the risk of life imprisonment and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment like Manning.

2013

Prosecutor still refuses to take Julian’s statement; the investigation has been frozen since 2010.

November 2013

UK Supreme Court decides in the Bucnys case that it had reached its decision erroneously in the Assange case the year before: the basis of the decision was flawed because Framework Decision was not a treaty and therefore the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was not applicable.

2014

No progress in Swedish investigation, which has been frozen since 2010.

June 19

Almost 60 legal associations and rights organizations urge the United Nations to remedy human rights violations in pre-charge detention of Julian Assange

July 2014

UK legislation which prevents abusive use of the EAW comes into force. Under this new legislation, Assange would have won the case in the UK and the Sweden’s EAW would have been invalidated. Under this amended legislation, Julian’s extradition to Sweden would have been barred on several grounds:

  • In the Assange judgment, the President of the Supreme Court Lord Phillips drew attention to the need for legislation that would allow UK courts to make a proportionality assessment of EAWs in the future, given that in the Assange case "It does not necessarily follow that an offence that justifies the issue of a domestic warrant of arrest will justify the issue of an EAW.". This referral resulted in Parliament enacting s. 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
  • Section 156 of the act bars extradition where no prosecution decision has been made. It is undisputed that the Swedish prosecutors have not reached a final decision regarding whether Assange will be charged or whether the matter will reach trial.

July 16

Stockholm District Court refuses to quash Julian’s arrest warrant.

September 12

Julian files a petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

November

Sweden’s Court of Appeal, Svea Hovratt, refuses to quash Julian’s arrest warrant. The court’s decision states that the prosecutor breached her duty in not progressing the case since 2010. It is her duty to progress the case at maximum speed and efficiency. The criticism was an informal instruction to the prosecutor to progress the case.

December

Julian files appeal to the Supreme Court of Stockholm.

2015

Prosecutor still refuses to take Julian’s statement; the investigation has been frozen since 2010.

January 26

At a United Nations press conference during the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of Sweden, Swedish representatives said that Sweden permits detaining persons indefinitely without charge. Seven member states made recommendations involving Julian Assange’s case

March

Supreme Court instructs Prosecutor General to reply to Julian appeal. Prosecutor announces she has now accepted Ecuador’s and Julian’s proposal to interview him in the embassy.

April

Julian consents to the prosecutor’s pre-conditions to question him.

June 1

Sweden sends Mutual Legal Assistance request to United Kingdom.

June 12

Sweden sends its request to Ecuador to interview Julian. Exchanges between Ecuador and Sweden follow.

June 17

Prosecutor cancels planned interview in the embassy. Julian issues statement saying prosecutor’s cancellation was ’reckless’.

July 23

Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino explains Ecuador’s position in Guardian interview.

August 13

Swedish prosecutor announces that she is discontinuing the investigation into the allegations concerning AA, given that these have become statute barred.

12 October

The UK Metropolitan Police announce that the overt police presence outside the embassy is being withdrawn, because of the cost and because “it seems a disproportionate response to continue with it and we think the public are not necessarily supportive of it”, having spent £12.6 million on the police deployment. However, the Met also announces that it will increase the covert deployment around the embassy. The Times reported that the real reason for the withdrawal was because of the concern that the police deployment "resemble[d] jailers" in the context of the impending UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decision.

4 December

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concludes, after 16 months of deliberations, that the UK and Sweden are arbitrarily depriving Julian Assange of his liberty. The decision is not communicated to the parties for some weeks.

December

Ecuador and Sweden concluded a bilateral agreement providing the framework for judicial cooperation between the two countries.

2016

22 January

UK and Sweden are notified by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that it had found in favour of Julian Assange. They are given two weeks’ advanced notice of the decision, and FOIA documents show the two countries coordinate an aggressive public response.

5 February

The UN WGAD notifies Julian Assange of the decision and holds a press conference.

Julian Assange and his legal team also hold a press conference.

April 2016

UK files an application to the Working Group on Abitrary Detention requesting a review of the decision.

14-15 November

After six years requesting to give his statement, Assange is finally able to do so for the first time, at the embassy of Ecuador in London. His Swedish defence attorney is not permitted to attend.

30 November

The UN issues a press release announcing it has rejected the United Kingdom’s request for review of the Assange decision. He must be immediately freed and compensated.

Cronología de los principales eventos en el caso de Suecia en contra de Assange

Julian Assange no ha sido formalmente imputado. Perdió su libertad el 7 de diciembre 2010 y no la ha recuperado. El caso sueco es una “investigación preliminar”. La fiscal todavía no ha tomado la decisión de acusarlo o no, ni de enjuiciarlo. Durante todo este tiempo, Julian a continuamente expresado su voluntad de declarar ante las autoridades suecas, que sea a través el traslado de funcionarios suecos en el Reino Unido como a través una comunicación teléfono o videoconferencia, este ultimo siendo el método rutinario normalmente utilizado para llevar a cabo interrogatorios.

2010

Febrero

Estados-Unidos inicia la investigación contra Wikileaks. Más de una docena de agencias federales están implicadas, incluyendo FBI, Departamento de justicia quienes dirigen ahora la investigacion NSA, CIA.

5 de Abril Wikileaks publica Collateral Murder.

25 de Julio Publicación de los Afghan War Diaries. Estados-Unidos allega que Wikileaks publicara pronto revelaciones masivas. Se revela que el FBI esta operando en Reino-Unido contra Wikileaks.

10 de agosto

Medios estado-unidenses indican que Estados Unidos esta incitando sus aliados a abrir investigaciones criminales contra Julian Assange y privarle de su libertad de movimiento.

12 de agosto

Julian va a Suecia para dar una conferencia sobre el involucramiento militar del pais en la guerra de Afghanistan.

20 de agosto

Dos mujeres suecas piden a la policía consejo sobre si se puede obligar a Julian a hacerse un test sobre enfermedades sexualmente transmisibles. Desestimando sus protestas, los policías tratan su visita como una denuncia, y abren una investigación. Mensajes de texto provenientes de una de las mujeres muestran que las mujeres “no querían acusarlo de nada”, que “la policía esta construyendo las alegaciones” y que una de ellas “se sintió manipulada por la policía”. La fiscalía filtra la identidad de Julian en relación a este caso a la prensa de corazón.

21 de agosto

La fiscal en jefe en cargo de la investigación Eva Finne abandona las investigaciones por “violacion”, afirmando que la descripción de los eventos no sugiere la existencia del crimen de violacion.

25 de agosto

La fiscal en jefe anuncia que "No hay sospecha de que se haya cometido ningun crimen"->http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyhets...]" y cierra la investigacion preliminar en relacion a "violacion".

1 de septiembre

La fiscal Marianne Ny, tercera fiscal que se encarga del caso en diez días, reactiva las investigaciones por “violacion en grado menor” después de que el hombre político Claes Borgstrom, que era candidato bajo la etiqueta socialdemócrata para el puesto de ministro de justicia, se haga el abogado de las dos mujeres (Borgstrom habia sido anteriormente famoso por haber tenido un rol clave en el error judicial que sufrio Thomas Quick. Hara dos docenas de entrevistas sobre el caso en el tiempo de las elecciones, antes de ser desechado por la mas joven de las mujeres por haberle dado mas importancia a la prensa que al caso. El rol de “representante legal” permite al abogado facturar por sus intervenciones en prensa. En 2013, estimaba haber dedicado por lo menos 80 horas al caso en los medias, la gran mayoría siendo mientras era candidato en las elecciones generales. Sigue representandola mujer mayor, AA.

15 de septiembre

La fiscal acepta por escrito que Julian salga de Suecia para continuar su trabajo.

19 de septiembre

Elecciones generales en Suecia – Claes Borgstrom es considerado como el futuro ministro de justicia en el caso en el que los social-democratas ganaran; AA (la mujer mas mayor), una antigua empleada y militante del partido socialdemocrata, también es candidata a las elecciones, así como lo Irmeli Krans, la policía que interrogo SW (la mujer mas joven).

27 de septiembre

Tras haber pasado cinco semanas esperando para ser interrogado en Suecia, y con el permiso de la Fiscal, Julian sale de Suecia. Se le incautan de manera ilegal sus ordenadores portátiles en la “zona segura” del aeropuerto de Estocolmo por los servicios secretos suecos, el SAPO. Documentos oficiales muestran que nunca llegaron al segundo escáner. Nunca fueron devolvidos y se sospecha que fueron transmitidos a Estados-Unidos.

22 de octubre

Publicación de los Iraq War logs por part de WikiLeaks

20 de noviembre

Suecia emite una nota roja que Interpol publica en su pagina delantera.

28 de noviembre

Publicación del Cablegate.

6 de diciembre

Reino Unido notifica a Julian que ha recibido un mandato de arresto europeo proveniente de Suecia.

7 de diciembre

Julian se dirige a le estación de policía y es encarcelado hasta el 16 de diciembre del 2010. Tras ello se le libera bajo fianza y le impone arresto domiciliario.

2011

La fiscal sigue sin querer tomarle declaracion a Julian. La investigación preliminar sigue congelada desde el 2010.

Febrero

Julian ataca la validez del mandato de arresto europeo ante el tribunal de primera instancia.

Julio

Julian lleva al caso ante la Corte de apelaciones.

2012

La fiscal sigue sin querer tomarle declaracion a Julian. La investigación preliminar sigue congelada desde el 2010.

Febrero

Julian lleva el caso ante la Corte suprema

Junio del 2014

La Corte suprema dicta que el mandato de arresto europeo es valido, apoyandose sobre un argumento que la Corte invalidara un año después. Se le otorga a Julian 14 días para apelar ante la Corte europea de derechos humanos.

16 de junio

Las autoridades suecas impugnan la ventana de 14 días dada a Julian para apelar a la Corte europea de derechos humanos, y intentan reducirlo a 0.

19 de junio

Julian pide protección a Ecuador, inquieto del riesgo de extradición a Estados-Unidos tanto por parte de Suecia que de Reino Unido.

16 de agosto

Se le otorga a Julian asilo político en consecuencia de la persecución política que se ha montado en Estados Unidos en relación a Wikileaks y por el riesgo de detención a vida y de tratamientos inhumanos y degradantes como los que sufrió Manning.

2013

La fiscal sigue sin querer tomarle declaracion a Julian. La investigación preliminar sigue congelada desde el 2010.

Noviembre

La Corte suprema de Reino-Unido decide, en el caso Bucnys, que había tomado una decisión errónea en el caso Assange el año precedente: la base de la decisión era falsa dado que la Decision-marco no es un tratado y en consecuencia la Convención de Vienna sobre relaciones diplomáticas no era aplicable.

2014

La fiscal sigue sin querer tomarle declaracion a Julian. La investigación preliminar sigue congelada desde el 2010.

19 de junio

59 organizaciones juridicas y de derechos humanos exigen a la ONU que ponga fin a la violacion de los derechos humanos de Julian Assange en el marco de su detención preventiva.

Julio

La ley britanica que impide el uso abusivo del mandato de arresto europeo entra en vigor. Bajo esta nueva legislación, Assange hubiera ganado su caso en el Reino-Unido y el mandato de arresto sueco hubiera sido invalidado. Bajo esta nueva legislación, la extradición de Julian Assange hubiera sido rechazada por varias razones:

  • En la decisión Assange, el Presidente de la Corte suprema Lord Phillips indico que era necesario que el Reino-Unido se dotara de una legislación que le permitiera evaluar la proporcionalidad del Mandato de arresto europeo, dado que en el caso Assange “no se deduce necesariamente de un delito que justifique la emisión de un mandato de detención nacional que justifique la emisión de un mandato de arresto europeo.” Esta indicacion tuvo como consecuencia que el Parlamento adoptara el s.157 del Anti social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
  • La Section 156 de la ley impide extradiciones cuando no se ha tomado decisión de acusar formalmente al individuo. Es un hecho indiscutido que los fiscales suecos no han tomado una decisión final sobre si Assange debería ser acusado formalmente o si el caso debería ser transmitido a los tribunales.

16 de julio

La Corte de Estocolmo rechaza anular el mandato de arresto contra Julian.

12 de septiembre

Julian hace una demanda ante el Grupo de Trabajo contra detención Arbitraria de la ONU.

Noviembre

La corte de apelaciones de Suecia, Svea Hovratt, rechaza anular el mandato de arresto contra Julian. En la decisión de la Corte se afirma que la fiscal no ha cumplido con su deber por no haber hecho avanzar la investigación desde el 2010. Se afirma que es su obligación hacer progresar el caso con máxima rapidez y eficacia. La critica aparece como una instrucción informal hacia la fiscal exigiéndole que avance con el caso.

Diciembre

Julian apela a la Corte suprema de Estocolmo.

2015

La fiscal sigue sin querer tomarle declaracion a Julian. La investigación preliminar sigue congelada desde el 2010.

26 de enero

En una conferencia de prensa de Naciones Unidas durante el examen universal de Suecia ante el Comité de derechos humanos, representantes de Suecia afirman que Suecia permite la detencion indefinida de individuos si aparece “necesario”. Siete estados miembro hacen recomendaciones a Suecia relativas al caso Assange.

Marzo

La Corte suprema instruye al Fiscal general que responda a la apelación de Julian. La Fiscal anuncia ahora que ha aceptado las propuestas de Julian y de Ecuador para interrogar el primero en la embajada.

Abril

Julian consiente a las pre-condiciones impuestas por la fiscal para interrogarle.

1 de junio

Suecia manda solicitud de asistencia judicial en materia penal al Reino Unido.

12 de junio

Suecia tramita un pedido formal a Ecuador para interrogar a Julian. Intercambios entre Ecuador y Suecia.

17 de junio

La Fiscal anula el interrogatorio previsto en la embajada. Julian publica una declaración en la que afirma que la decisión es “inconsiderada”.

23 de julio

El ministro de asuntos exteriores Ricardo Patiño explica la posición ecuatoriana en una entrevista a The Guardian.

2272 days under house arrest.

Our Twitter Feed

Read more on twitter...

Click to share this post on Twitter Share this on Facebook