Underlying all of this is the position on refoulement which seems very obscure. It has been raised in the UN report but without any clear answer.
Normally Britain is very firm that if we extradite someone for one offence, you can't then try him for another offence and you can't refoule him (ie extradite him to a 3rd country) to be tried there. Unless you have those rules, all the safeguards in the extradition process are worthless.
The reason Ecuador gave for giving him asylum in the first place is that Ecuador said that Assange did not have sufficient protection against being refouled from Sweden to the USA.
Assange's stated reason for hiding in the Embassy is his fear of refoulement which he says may occur.
One would expect that if Assange was not tried and convicted in Sweden and he was not refouled, Sweden would deport him, in which case he could travel to anywhere that would receive him (and obviously Australia as his country of citizenship must accept him).
The USA has not sought his extradition from the UK.
So the fundamental questions ought to be very easy to answer. Has Sweden given the UK and Ecuador a diplomatic assurance that it will not refoule him to the USA. If not, why not? Has the UK said it would not require any assurance that Sweden would not refoule him, and if so, why?
Remarkably, apart from Assange's supporters' wild accusations, there seems to be nothing authoritative here from either the UK or Swedish governments.
If Assange does run the risk of refoulement, then there is something in the UN's accusation. If he doesn't, and Assange is inventing an unrealistic risk, there is really no reason why Ecuador doesn't turf him onto the street.