Open Letter to Sweden's Prosecutor General: Mr Anders PERKLEV Prosecutor General Office of the Prosecutor General stermalmsgsatan 87c

Box 5553, 114 85 Stockholm Sweden By email: anders.perklev@aklagare.se OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN Dear Anders Perklev, The extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant is currently before the UK Supreme Court, who will decide whether to hear his appe al on the grounds it has not been issued by a proper judicial authority. Mr Assa nge's case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European cit izens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme fo r people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you pleas e provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judic ial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility. On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors "judicial authorities" f or the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not somet hing that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extra dition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be i ssued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date? Mr Assange's name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecuti on Service, which is illegal under Sweden's privacy laws. Can you outline - for an international audience - what steps were taken to investigate this and a summ ary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with? Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominat es themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Autho rity English website says: "In the case of less serious crimes, the police conti nue to lead the preliminary investigation." As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority's own website as "less seri ous crime", it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief inv estigator at this stage. Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign juri sdictions. However, Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented he r from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor G eneral when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way? Can you please outline - if only in general terms - on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finn , a senior prosecutor you appointed t o review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant - "I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape." - leaving only one instan

ce of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked poli ce protocol on the internet - as millions of people across Europe have - there s eems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva F inn 's decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used cond om. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecutio n protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly , no DNA could be found on this condom. This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority's Objectivity Demand (on your website): "Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he o r she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly t he prosecutor's task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecuto r is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situati on with respect to evidence." Again, please outline - for an international audience - whether this is a discip linary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Pro secutor General. I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in th is case. Under Sweden's Code of Judicial Procedure "the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unn ecessary cost or inconvenience." (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt t hat a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers' money has been wasted ar guing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used t o question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britai n is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in t he UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompe nse for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the Eu ropean Arrest Warrant process? Yours sincerely, [name] [UK/Swedish/Australian Citizen / Citizen of _______ ]