Sexual Abuse Section - Swiss Rejection of Extradition Request. 

The current information in the sexual abuse section give great detail on portions of what the Swiss said was there basis for the denial of the US request.  
However it is not at all balanced by the US perspective.  This makes it appear not NPOV in my view.  Problems include.
1.  There is a dispute of whether the documents were requested or not.
2.  It a large change from standard extradition requests, the Swiss evaluated the merits of the case, and the punishment used.  They speculated that the 42 days of evaluation could have been the entire sentence.   That speculation is defense argument for matters that have not been determined in the courts.  In this way the Swiss became a judge of the case, to which the US was not allowed to argue against.  This deviation from standard means of handling extradition requests is already being speculated to have a lasting impact on other cases.

Here are some of the concerns on the other side of what is currently written:

The Swiss government said its decision to reject extradition was partly based on U.S. authorities' failure to turn over transcripts of secret testimony given by the attorney who originally handled the director's case. The testimony "should prove" that Polanski already served his sentence with the court-ordered diagnostic study, the Swiss Justice Ministry said.  

The main issue appeared to be how the Swiss government expanded its focus beyond the formalities of the American extradition request to pass judgment on allegations of misconduct by Los Angeles authorities.

"This was an admission that when higher interests are at stake, not everyone is equal before the law," wrote the widely respected Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper. "Some are a bit more equal."

Another Zurich paper, the Tages-Anzeiger, called the Swiss decision "shaky."

"It breaks with the tradition of only examining the formal correctness of extradition requests," it said. "Perhaps the new practice will in the future also benefit detainees who have less of a lobby than the world-famous director."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GUC3O80

ALL of this does not explain why Polanski skipped out of his sentencing hearing, if he believed he had served his sentence, and when he quite capable lawyers representing him before the judge.

So I see the rational used by the Swiss to be controverted and biased to the defense agreements, which have never been tested before a court of law.  To where these arguments were argued, the Judges refused to grant their merit.  The method the Swiss used to determine the extradition request is entirely new.  So I believe these sentences in the section either need balancing of the two sides, and or pared down.   
Others thoughts?