The women in question only refer to his remarks about the definition of rape. Melzer states
"True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of ‘rape’ in any language other than Swedish."
This isn't true; it has the 'ring of rape' in Switzerland:
The law even in the UK is unclear. "Dr Sinead Ring of the University of Kent notes that removing a condom partway through sex without consent, “is not definitely an offence under English law. It has never been brought as a case. But there is a section in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance on conditional consent, and this would be an example of that.” "
In a British case brought in 2011 the CPS decided not to prosecute a man accused by his wife of removing a condom while having sex, it having been an explicit condition. The decision not to prosecute was seemingly taken mainly because of considerations of provability.
Nevertheless following a judicial review the CPS was ordered by the High Court to review the decision.
The proof of intent remains the sticking point, in what would normally be a jury trial.
There are certainly discussions to be had around the issues of consent - but in the present case, the women cited have been talking about the law and the definition of rape.
Melzer is wrong on this point - and should have known better.