said by AVD:
nothing new here. I think the way it works is that Sweden should ask for extradition from equador directly. UK has no beef with Assuange.
I see a problem with trying to ask for extradition from Ecuador directly. According to this Wikipedia article
, the Ecuadorian embassy is not soverign territory of Ecuador.Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.
If this is true, then Assange is still on British soil. That could mean that Sweden needs to pursue extradition with GB. The stumbling block remains that Great Britain and Sweden decline to arrange the extradition in a way that would preclude any subsequent extradition to a 3rd country, such as the US. That would involve guarantees under article 28(4) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
along with arrangements to eliminate ways to circumvent that agreement. According to update one
there may be a way to circumvent the framework. If that stumbling block is removed, then it is my understanding that Ecuador will surrender Assange.
However, at this point, from what I've heard, Great Britain and Sweden have declined to handle this extradition in a way that would preclude a subsequent extradition to a 3rd country.