The FUD-like assertion about "the prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so..." keeps floating about so much that the paragraph immediately below in that very same Wikipedia article expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" (iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to.
"Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries"
> expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made
My statement that the prosecution has refused offers to question him by other easy means is entirely factual and not FUD-like. Perhaps I should not have used that acronym, it triggers too many strong reactions. ;-)
You yourself quote from the Wikipedia article that the "brought into custody" requirement is, in fact, not a requirement of the Swedish legal procedures, but is the position of the prosecution. The legality of said requirement/interpretation is, among other things, up for debate in this proceeding.
> (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him"
In Swedish law, "charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning". Questioning him is a prerequisite to placing charges. Of course they want to charge him, but that is another matter. They need to jump through the proper hoops.
>(iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to.
Wrong (AFAIK).
1. A whole round of questioning and presentation of reasons has to be done before you can charge someone. I am not an lawyer, but this is what Swedish law requires, apparently. The burden of reasonable suspicion is on the Prosecution, not the Defense.
2. It is yet to be decided, legally speaking, if Assange has been evading arrest. One argument presented by the Defense is that the entire holed-up-in-the-embassy-for-years situation is equivalent to house arrest.
The technicalities are many and complex, and Assange's legal team has appealed the extradition order on a wide range of technicalities and thus far failed in all of them. But it's beyond dispute that the prosecution claims to want a lot more than mere questions, and it's Assange who has refused to remain in a position which allows for the usual legal process to run its course.
The wider question is whether it is more accurate to claim that Assange has not yet been formally charged with the offences (or had the charges thrown out)
(i) because the Swedish prosecution is refusing requests
or (ii) because Assange did not respond to attempts by the prosecution to contact him whilst in Sweden (as verified by his own legal representatives), left Sweden on the day an arrest warrant was issued, and then following arrest and bail in the UK took the unusual option of relocating himself outside the reaches of the British police whilst fighting the extradition order in the courts.
I would suggest it's near impossible to believe the former factor is the primary reason no formal decision on charges has been made, even if one feels the rape allegations are extremely unlikely to be true and Assange has good reason to be afraid.
"Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries"