> that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture
I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms.
His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those.
Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).
This is a deeply ignorant statement considering he's currently looking at being extracted to the US, who are considering a 175 year sentence. The article you're commenting on lists all the anomalies that happened with his case.
The choice appears to be stay in the embassy and hope his lawyers could have closed the warrant or spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement as Chelsea Manning was. To say any of this was his choice is an incredibly cruel take.
I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.
Regardless of positions on the issue, it's important to recognize that the UN has essentially no power. The only time it does is when certain powerful member states (mostly security council) agree to back a measure. In other words, half the UN's member states voting to back a measure does not matter if said member states are small ones. Same is true of enforcement: there has to be consensus, which is unlikely to happen against America.
"Binding", in that the parties had signed the convention and agreed to "uphold" such rulings. They instead claimed that "Assange was free to leave at any time", i.e. that they were "upholding" the ruling. At the very least, Assange would be entitled to compensation as a means of enforcing the ruling, should the states refuse to comply. Which court would rule about such compensation is not clear to me. Perhaps the European court of Human Rights, but that is speculation on my part.
Neither the UK nor Sweden would give him guarantees that he would not be extradited to the US. The UK stopped all attempts by Ecuador to leave the UK (he became a Ecuadorian citizen and was appointed as a diplomat, but was refused diplomatic immunity by the UK). Assange stated many times that he wanted to go to Sweden, but only on the condition they wouldn't extradite him to the US.
So, I think staying the embassy was the only option for him, given that the US clearly wanted to have Assange and had already tortured Chelsea Manning for simply being the source of a leak. Not to mention that "Collateral Murder" was literally a video about the US military murdering journalists and then killing first responders. If they were willing to cover up their killing of US journalists, god knows what they'd be willing to do in Assange's case.
I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms.
His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those.
Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).