You do realize you had to repeat it in order to place the quote here? You didn't place any words distancing yourself from what that quote claimed, ergo, I concluded it was a claim you agreed with, and you were repeating it.
I'm now confused as to what you think, because your rebuttal to my comment that you're continuing to repeat an untrue claim, simply says 'it', apparently indicating you agree with my assessment that it's an untrue claim. Or is that just careless wording on your part, and you do think Sweden succeeded in its extradition claim because it just wanted to question JA?
ETA: And if you still think you're not repeating, what was the purpose of extracting just that quote from the BBC article and adding no additional commentary?