h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is at least one other motive for embassies to do this - they may wish to annoy their host country. Another reason would be for embassies to do it to gain a negotiating ploy against their host country (or indeed another country all together who wanted the person in question)

We have not (yet) pulled diplomatic links with Ecuador, so obviously taking in someone fleeing arrest does not automatically cause suspension of communications, so some embassies may consider it worthwhile in certain situations, either as a negative move, or as a ploy to gain something.

While these actions are, as with the previous two situations you suggested, certainly not applicable to all prisnors, it doesn't mean that it won't happen.

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is prepared to be tried in a Swedish court, as long as he isn't extradited to the US, says Ecuador's president Rafael Correa."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-tried-sweden-ecuador-video?intcmp=239

"Ecuador has requested assurances from Sweden that Assange won't be extradited to the U.S. but has been provided no such guarantee.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/08/30/Assange-Rape-Allegations/

Such a guarantee would be illegal under Swedish and international law. That's the reason Sweden won't give those assurances.

Ecuador probably knows that as well, and is just using it as justification

Re: diplomatic immunity
Many years ago during the Cold War, a Russian diplomat,
a low ranking 'office boy' who was probably a wanna-be
James Bond type from the KGB, got drunk and killed a
young Canadian woman in his 'sports car'. A clear case
of DUI and reckless wanton vehicular homicide. But he
had immunity and I recall images of him smiling and
waving to the cameras as he was ceremoniously escorted
to the airport and a plane back home. It was never said
how he was treated when he got back to Russia but I do
suspect, if he was a KGB agent, that he was disciplined.

~jwf~

That is of course one of the worst things - nowadays due to absolute refusal to accept these things, it normally comes down to - you can let us try him (or her), you can try them yourselves fairly, or we'll remove your embassy

Perhaps a more relevant quote from my last link is this:

"On the British news show Four Corners, Per E. Samuelson, a Swedish defense lawyer for Assange referenced one of the women's tweets: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!"

Samuelson commented: "Well, if you send text messages like that, [saying] 'I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world,' the night after you then say you were raped -- I mean you shouldn't write such text messages if you had been raped by that person the night before."

This particular statement shines a light some of the strategies often used to discredit women in court. It also shows how little understanding many people have around the dynamics of abuse and sexual assault. Rape is not as simple as many would like it to be. The images we see in movies, wherein a stranger breaks into a woman's apartment and she is left battered, in tears, traumatized and "ruined for life" are not representative of many women's experiences (though this is the experience of some women). Whether or not a woman displays appropriate "traumatized" behaviour is irrelevant. It is up to no one to decide how a woman should respond to assault."

We should be looking at the charges and not possible consequences.