You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. The law is a perfectly "good reason" for authorities to act the way they did.
It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".
Which procedural limitations? The ones Ny proved doesn't exist when she finally after four years interviewed him in London after all?
I'm not expected Sweden to be like the UK/US - I'm Norwegian, and our system is much closer to the Swedish and to the UK/US systems.
I am expecting a prosecutor to not stubbornly refuse to take actions for fours years while claiming it to be impossible, while being contradicted by legal experts, just to suddenly decide it's possible after all.
If that's too much to ask of Swedish prosectors, you have a big problem with your legal justice system.
> You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law.
Can you clarify this? I'm honestly confused - the topic seems to be the refusal and then acceptance of an in-embassy interview. I could understand if the refusal was a procedural issue, but in that case why was it eventually accepted?
Exactly. Sweden was clearly trying to say the in-embassy interview was out of the question, against Swedish law. Then completely backtracked and went ahead with it anyway. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps the UN ruling against Sweden was the what pushed them to do it.
It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".