Because he has a right to respond to the allegations against him, and being in Sweden isn't necessary (neither from a legal nor a practical point of view) for that.
>Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.
Yes, he has a right to respond to the allegations. But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen. The Swedish authorities may decide to grant him that request, but he doesn't have the right to demand it. It's breathtakingly arrogant of him to suggest that he can. He has exercised his right to challenge the EAW and lost comprehensively.
Assange isn't breaking any Swedish rules or laws by not showing up in Sweden (he did however violate his UK bail).
I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!).
>But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen
Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here.
It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.
>Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?
Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.