Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange eftersökt för våldtäkt i Sverige

Varför behövde SC ta till Wienkonventionen om traktaträtt för att kunna nå ett beslut?
Och om det redan finns ett beslut i EU-domstolen om vad som inte är juridisk myndighet, är det då fritt för en stats att fatta andra beslut som går emot den förstnämndas beslut? är EU-domstolens beslut prejudicerande eller måste fatta de nya specifika beslut varje gång?

Brittiske rättskommentatorn Joshua Rozenberg är förvånad över utvecklingen.

–Det skulle vara väldigt pinsamt om Högsta domstolen var tvungen att återöppna fallet och det är ju extraordinärt att de kanske har grundat sig på något som de inte låtit parterna argumentera kring, säger Rozenberg till BBC."[/i]
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/nu-...sanges-framtid

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg was just on BBC News talking about the request by Julian Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, for two weeks to decide whether to ask the supreme court to reopen the case. He said:

This is a very unusual thing. It's not happened since this court was set up. It happened in the Pinochet case in the House of Lords. Very unusual, and means there's everything left to play for still.

He said that since Assange was not in court his lawyers had not been able to take instructions from him yet regarding what he wanted them to do. "We're waiting to see what he says. In the meantime he can stay in this country for at least two weeks, while they consider making this unprecedented application to reopen the case on the basis that it was decided on a point of law in the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties that was simply not argued by either side and which the court gave no notice to either the Crown Prosecution Service, representing the Swedish authorities, or Mr Assange's lawyers, that they were considering taking into account."

Rozenberg added:

It would be very embarrassing if the supreme court felt the need to reopen the case and it's extraordinary, isn't it, that they might have considered something which they gave the parties no opportunity to argue. From time to time judges do their research and they add points, minor points, that have not been considered, but it appears that the decisive point in this case was one that wasn't argued, and that's something which is pretty unusual, and that's what prompted this unexpected intervention from Dinah Rose which took Lord Phillips so much by surprise that he mixed her up with the other counsel, Clare Montgomery.