MISUSE OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

Catherine Heard, Head of Policy at Fair Trials International

GUARDIAN LETTER - CATHERINE HEARD

Julian Assange may ultimately succeed in his bail application, but the threat of extradition to Sweden will still hang over him (The Julian Assange case: a mockery of extradition?, 14 December). The public interest in Assange's case is understandable, but his case illustrates a wider, less publicised problem. Last year alone, Europe's fast-track extradition system was used to extradite nearly 700 people from the UK. Our work at Fair Trials International leaves us in no doubt that this system, designed to deliver justice, is in fact causing many serious cases of injustice.

A central concern in the Assange case is that Sweden seems not even to have laid charges. The European arrest warrant should, by law, be used only to prosecute or to enforce a sentence. Serious though the allegations may be, there is no basis to extradite Mr Assange, unless for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. We have seen many cases of overseas prosecutors reaching for the quick-fire, tick-box EAW, rather than using other legitimate means of investigating alleged crimes. Michael Turner and Andrew Symeou are just two of those we have helped, and who experienced horrendous periods in detention after being surrendered, before even being questioned by police.

In such cases as these, less drastic tools should be used. Sweden should ask the UK to assist with its investigations, starting by questioning Assange. The EAW, used properly, is a key weapon in the fight against serious cross-border crime. It should not, however, be the measure of first resort.