LONDON (RNN) - Arguments wrapped up in the two-day hearing on the legality of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's extradition from the United Kingdom to Sweden Thursday.
Assange is facing extradition for questioning regarding allegations of sex crimes dating back to August 2010.
At the heart of the hearing is whether the warrant for Assange was issued by a "judicial authority," as required by the European Arrest Warrant guidelines under which he was detained and under the UK's Extradition Act of 2003.
In Sweden, an arrest warrant is requested by prosecutors rather than judges, differing from the UK's political system.
Dinah Rose, counsel for Assange, argued the warrant was invalid because the prosecutor would not be considered a "judicial authority" in the UK. On Wednesday she also argued that when the Extradition Act was passed, it was with the belief that a judge, or someone independent of both parties, would ask for extradition.
Clare Montgomery, addressing the Justices on behalf of Sweden, argued that extradition "has always been a partial act," and therefore the need for independence was illogical.
She also argued that cases in Ireland, Italy and Cyprus, who also use the European Arrest Warrant framework in their proceedings, reiterated the belief that it was "left to the member state to determine what a judicial authority is."
Rose countered that the meaning of "judicial authority" was meant to be applicable across European Union nations. She told the Justices that the use of a prosecutor to request an extradition was "abhorrent and alien" in UK law.
Assange is accused of committing sex crimes against two women while visiting Sweden to give a lecture in August 2010. He left the country before he was notified that a domestic arrest warrant had been issued for him.
The Australian-national first made headlines after he founded WikiLeaks in 2006. The organization is known worldwide for leaking private government documents, including more than 250,000 diplomatic cables and nearly 400,000 classified documents pertaining to the War in Afghanistan.
The extradition request is not linked to the group, although Assange has said that the criminal case is politically motivated.
In a Jan. 18 interview published in Rolling Stone magazine, Assange said WikiLeaks had found information that "included a view that the U.S. would find the legal case against me very difficult, and that therefore I should be very cautious about extralegal means, those extralegal means not being assassination but rather the planting of drugs, child pornography or being otherwise embroiled in disgraceful conduct.
"It was on my mind and everyone else's mind when the allegations arose," he said.
Assange's battle against extradition first hit the courts in November 2011, when he appealed the decision to the High Court of England and Wales. His appeal was denied, but the UK Supreme Court agreed to listen to Assange's arguments in December 2011.
He has been under house arrest for 13 months while out on bail.
A verdict regarding whether the arrest warrant for Assange was legal is expected in the coming weeks.
Copyright 2012 Raycom News Network. All rights reserved.
Julian Assange addresses reporters after an extradition hearing at the UK's High Court in November 2011. (Source: CNN)
Clare Montgomery argues that Sweden's extradition request is legal to the UK Supreme Court on Feb. 2. (Source: CNN)
Counsel for Assange Dinah Rose argues against points made by Montgomery before the UK Supreme Court on Feb. 2. (Source: CNN)
All content ©Copyright 2000 - 2012, KCTV, Kansas City, MO.(A Meredith CorporationStation) and WorldNow. All rights reserved.