In the Assange case I recall even the prosecutor saying that the kind of things was common when doing police work over borders, but that they hoped that things would be done on time. From what I remembered, it was also mostly on time.
But since Embassies are considered sacrosanct, it is the Ecuadorians that exercised their right to dictate the rules of the interview rather than the three other involved nations.
Here's a seemingly comprehensive history: http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-o...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4304200/Pamela-Ander...
He absolutely has cause for concern, I agree, but what he has to gain in this specific case strikes me as a lot more than he can inflict on his opposition, even if it came down to just the PR benefits.