What makes this whole process so strange is the fact that there's multiple countries involved. Each country has it's own idea of human rights, it's own conception of judicial process. Judicial process in one country can easily resemble a human rights violation in another. It's one of the reasons political asylum exists. Ecuador granted Assange asylum because they recognize the possibility of Assange being extradited to a country where he's never resided for a political crime and possibly tortured for is a grave rights violation.

Ecuador is now responsible for ensuring that those rights aren't violated. They're the one's laying out the conditions, not Assange. It would make Ecuador look bad if they allowed Sweden to take charge of him, and then he ended up being extradited to the US by an organ that doesn't recognize his asylum status in another country.

Everybody involved is just trying to do their jobs, it just takes a long time to work everything out because the legal systems involved were never intended to work like this. If it were just one system, it could work as designed.

I'd be shocked if Assange didn't agree to them.

'Swedish prosecutors have been accused of "victimising" Julian Assange after it was revealed they had interviewed 44 people in the UK but were refusing to question the WikiLeaks founder in the London embassy where he is living.' [1]

[1] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swedish-prosecutors-slammed-victim...

It's almost as if he has some ... "rights", correct? What a concept!