[JURIST] A new report [text] released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center [organization website] estimates that the total number of illegal immigrants in the US has risen to some 12 million, despite US government attempts to crack down on inflow. The US House of Representatives passed [JURIST report] a controversial bill [bill summary] late last year to tighten border security, but the Pew report says that this has only caused immigrant workers from Mexico to stay longer since movement across the US-Mexico border is now more difficult. Members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] began meetings last week to debate several additional proposals [JURIST report] on immigration reform which have bitterly divided lawmakers.

This latest Pew report estimates that since 2000, nearly 850,000 illegal immigrants have come into the US each year; a previous Pew study [JURIST report] released in September found that the rate of illegal immigration into the United States had increased despite tighter security measures in place since the September 11 terror attacks, but only at a pace paralleling the rate of economic growth. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives has approved renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act [PDF text; JURIST news archive], sending the reauthorization bill to President Bush for his signature. The US Senate approved [JURIST report] the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 [HR 3199 summary; DOJ fact sheet] last week.

Sixteen key provisions [DOJ report, PDF] of the Patriot Act were set to expire at the end of last year, but members of Congress were initially unable to reach agreement on the terms of the renewal, prompting instead two short-term extensions [JURIST report], the latest of which is set to expire March 10. The renewal legislation will make 14 of the provisions permanent and extend the remaining two until 2009, those being Section 206 on "roving" wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Section 215 on subpoenas under FISA. Four Republican senators joined with Democrats to oppose a previous version of the renewal, but eventually reached a compromise agreement [PDF summary; JURIST report] to incorporate additional civil liberties protections in the renewal. The additional safeguards include allowing recipients of Section 215 subpoenas for information in terror investigations to be able to challenge the accompanying gag order; eliminating a requirement that people who receive National Security Letters (NSL) [sample text, PDF; ACLU backgrounder] must provide the FBI the names of lawyers consulted about the NSL; and clarifying current law to ensure that libraries functioning in their traditional roles would not be subject to NSLs.

7:45 PM ET - The USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 [S. 2271 summary] passed the House 280-138 [roll call], with just two votes more than the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill on an expedited basis. S. 2271, a series of amendments to the reauthorization bill, was approved by the Senate [JURIST report] last week. Both bills will now go to President Bush for his signature. After the vote Speaker Dennis Hastert praised the anti-terror provisions [press release] in the bill and also welcomed the inclusion of "critical anti-drug provisions that we hope will stem the flow of methamphetamine into our communities." The bill now goes to President Bush for expected signature.

[JURIST] The Netherlands cabinet is set to decide later this month whether to go forward with a ban against Muslim women wearing the niqab [Wikipedia backgrounder], the Muslim religious veil similar to a burqa [Wikipedia backgrounder] that leaves only a woman's eyes visible. The specific idea was first floated [JURIST report] in October. Last year the Dutch Parliament [official website] voted in favor of prohibiting all face coverings in public for security reasons, and the cabinet is waiting to hear whether the proposed ban would violate European human rights laws before deciding to authorize the bill. A female Dutch-Muslim lawyer said she believes a ban will prompt more Muslim women to wear the niqab as a form of protest and expressed concern that a ban will eventually lead to a further ban on the hijab, the Muslim headscarf [JURIST news archive].

If the bill is approved, the Netherlands would become the first European country to completely ban the niqab nationwide, following partial bans in France, which outlawed clear religious symbols [JURIST report] including Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps, and Christian crucifixes from schools in 2004, and a Belgian town which banned burkas as an extension of laws that mandate easy public identification. Last November, the European Court of Human Rights [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Turkey's ban on the wearing of headscarves at universities was allowable to prevent extremist political movements. The results of the human rights study for the Dutch bill is expected to be available later this month. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] Tuesday approved a bill to bolster anti-counterfeiting laws expected to prevent billions of dollars in losses to US manufacturers. The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act [text, PDF], passed by the Senate last month, mandates the elimination of all equipment used to make counterfeit goods and strengthens laws which prohibit the use of fake trademark labels. American auto suppliers have voiced support for the measure due to losses in revenue and safety concerns over the manufacturing of counterfeit brake pads which proved to be faulty.

The National Association of Manufacturers [association website] estimates that fake goods make up almost $500 million of all goods produced each year, crossing industries such as pharmaceuticals, clothing, auto parts, toys, and electronics. The measure will now go to President Bush for his signature. AP has more.

[JURIST] A UN expert on racism warned Tuesday that instances of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia are on the rise worldwide, and pose a special danger as they are not confined to extremist groups but have become integral to mainstream democratic systems. Senegalese lawyer Doudou Diene, UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance [official website], was speaking to the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [UN fact sheet] meeting in Geneva. Diene said that the fight against terrorism and other government initiatives had led to discriminatory immigration and asylum policies and a retreat from diversity and tolerance: racism was now "commonplace" and ethnically and racially-biased stances had become increasingly legitimized in intellectual discourse by respected scholars.

Speaking of recent events, he said the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad [JURIST news archive] reflected a re-emergence of xenophobia, but encouraged the UN to regard the furor over their dissemination as a clash of competing values - freedom of expression and freedom of religion - rather than some "clash of civilizations", indicating that the balance between the two had to be negotiated through dialogue [press release] rather than law. UN News Center has more. Read the full UN summary of Diene's meeting with the Committee.

[JURIST] A CIA information review officer providing a sworn statement to US District Judge Reggie B. Walton [official profile] has indicated that clearing top-level information requested by former vice-presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense profile; JURIST news archive] could take as long as nine months. Marilyn Dorn filed the statement Friday but it was only unsealed Tuesday. Libby, who faces perjury charges [PDF indictment] for lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case [JURIST news archive], has asked for nearly one year of presidential security briefing transcripts. Dorn also stated that disclosure of the transcripts could potentially compromise national security, suggesting that the agency is opposed to a hypothetical release.

Libby insists the documents are necessary to prove that he was so busy with security matters that he simply forget his conversation with reporters about the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame [JURIST news archive]. AP has more.

[JURIST] Former Enron [JURIST news archive] Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow [JURIST news archive] took the stand for the prosecution against his former bosses Enron founder Kenneth Lay [Houston Chronicle profile] and former CEO Jeff Skilling [Houston Chronicle profile] Tuesday. Fastow testified that both Lay and Skilling were aware of the creation of two partnerships in 1999 designed to keep the failing firm's liabilities off the books. Fastow said that Skilling encouraged him to create as much revenue from the partnerships as possible, earnings that were later swapped with the parent company to conceal financial losses.

Both Lay and Skilling have been charged with fraud and conspiracy [indictment, PDF; DOJ Enron trial materials], and contend that they were duped by Fastow [JURIST report] who initiated the fraudulent behavior to increase his personal gain. Fastow pleaded guilty [plea agreement, PDF] to two counts of conspiracy in 2004 for his involvement in the scandal. AP has more. The Houston Chronicle has local coverage.

ALSO ON JURIST  Op-ed: Enron and 'Managing' the Numbers

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] insisted Tuesday that US treatment of detainees is consistent with the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials], but questioned the relevance of some Geneva provisions in the context of "this new kind of war, against this new kind of enemy." In an interview [BBC report] with BBC News during an official visit to London [JURIST report], Gonzales wondered whether Convention requirements that detainees be given commissary privileges and a monthly allowance made sense and also questioned whether embarrassing or insulting a detainee should constitute cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. This is not the first time that Gonzales has questioned the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to the war on terror. In a 2002 memo [text; JURIST report] written while he was White House counsel, Gonzales suggested that the post-September 11 situation and the war against terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Earlier Tuesday, Gonzales publicly defended US policies on torture, saying that the US respects the rights of detainees and does not knowingly practice extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] by sending detainees to countries where it is likely they will be tortured. In a speech [text] at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, Gonzales said:

The United States abhors torture and categorically rejects its use, as a matter of policy, as a matter of international obligations, and as a matter of US law. Likewise, US law forbids cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees as defined by U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, whether in the United States or abroad, whether at the hands of military or civilian personnel. When violations do occur, as they have, we investigate any credible allegation - and those found to have committed infractions are disciplined. Unlike our enemies who torture and decapitate innocent human beings to make their point, we are committed to rooting out and denouncing the mistreatment of human beings - even when it is committed by our soldiers against enemy combatants. The virtue of the rule of law is not that it eliminates all human flaws; rather, laws expose flaws, and address them justly.

Our Congress recently passed and the President signed the Detainee Treatment Act, which included the well-known McCain Amendment. Contrary to press accounts, however, the McCain Amendment did not prohibit torture. Our federal criminal laws have long done that. Instead, the McCain Amendment codified in U.S. law the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment contained in the Convention Against Torture, making clear that the prohibition applies to the treatment of all detainees under U.S. control anywhere in the world.

In the context of renditions - another matter that has raised particular concern in the UK and Europe - US policy is also clear. We do not transport anyone to a country if we believe it more likely than not that the individual will be tortured; and we seek assurances, where appropriate, that transferred persons will not be tortured. We do not use the airports or air space of any country in Europe or anywhere in the world for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he will be tortured.

the United States Congress and the President have recognized the unusual nature of this conflict and, the wartime context notwithstanding, have provided additional and unprecedented legal protections to Guantanamo detainees - protections that seem to have received scant attention abroad. First, each detainee is provided not just the traditional assessment of his status by commanders in the field. He is also afforded a subsequent formal hearing before a separate, three member military tribunal to determine whether he is properly being detained as an enemy combatant. Then, if the detainee objects to the tribunal's conclusion, he may appeal to a civilian federal Court of Appeals and thereafter to the United States Supreme Court. In addition, every detainee is afforded an annual administrative review to determine whether he should be released - a process very much like a prison parole hearing.

We are aware of no other nation in history that has afforded procedural protections like these to enemy combatants - including allowing access to civilian courts for those captured on the battlefield. In point of fact, more than 265 detainees have already been transferred out of Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, despite assurances from those released, the Department of Defense reports that at least 15 have returned to the fight and been recaptured or killed on the battlefield.

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] in Strasbourg ruled Tuesday that a British woman could not have frozen embryos conceived with a former partner implanted without his consent. Natallie Evans and Howard Johnston entered an IVF program in 2001 and Johnson agreed to the implantation of the embryos, but later withdrew his consent after the breakup of the couple. Evan appealed to the ECHR [JURIST report] in September after two adverse UK court rulings, including a loss in the Court of Appeal [JURIST report] in 2004 citing the terms of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act [text] under which consent must be given by both prospective parents for in vitro fertilization to be allowed. Evans' lawyers had argued that Evans was entitled to implantation even in the face of Johnson's objection under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text], declaring that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life...".

The ECHR ruling [text, press release] is consistent with the law governing similar circumstances in other jurisdictions. In the United States, courts have thusfar ruled that each parent has the absolute right to prevent implantation of any frozen embryo under the constitutional right to privacy. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] San Francisco Superior Court [official website] Judge James L. Warren ruled Monday that the University of California [official website] system broke a contract with students when it raised fees during their three-year professional programs. Under the ruling the system should refund more than $33.8 million, primarily to students who enrolled in the professional schools in 2002 or earlier.

University of California officials say it was always made clear that fees could change. Citing a budget crisis, they contended that it was necessary to raise fees in 2003 to cover cuts in funding. Fees will be raised again for the 2006/7 academic year, in part to cover the costs of the lawsuit [UC Office of the President, 2006-07 Budget Proposal]. AP has more. The Los Angeles Times has local coverage.

[JURIST] US Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) [official website], chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website], has said that the committee may recall US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] to testify about the administration's domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. Gonzales testified [JURIST report] before the committee last month and later followed up that testimony with a letter [PDF text], which Specter said suggests that the administration is operating other classified intelligence programs beyond the NSA domestic eavesdropping program. Gonzales said last week that the administration is not conducting any additional warrantless domestic surveillance [JURIST report] beyond what President Bush acknowledged in December, but Specter nonetheless said that Gonzales could be brought back before the judiciary committee.

Ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website], has voiced frustration [JURIST report] with Gonzales' response to requests for information about the program. Leahy on Monday called for Gonzales to "clear up the confusion he created first by ducking our questions, and later by further clouding the issues with a 'clarifying' letter that substantially revised his unsworn testimony." AP has more.

[JURIST] Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz [official profile] said Tuesday that Israel would consider resorting to targeted killings of Hamas leaders if the group resumes attacks in Israel. Hamas [ICT backgrounder], regarded by much of the international community to be a terrorist group, took control of the Palestinian Legislative Council [official website] this week after a surprise victory [JURIST report] in January's elections. Mofaz said that if Hamas "chooses the path of terror," its leaders would be considered a "terrorist leadership" and no one would be immune from targeted assassinations [BBC backgrounder], even Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh.

Israel's policy of targeting top Hamas officials has drawn widespread criticism in recent years. The assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin [BBC profile] in 2004 was widely condemned as contrary to international law [JURIST reports] by rights groups and by the UN's Commission on Human Rights [JURIST report]. Early last year, Israel agreed to suspend targeted killings of Palestinian militants [JURIST report] as part of a cease-fire agreement. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] The French Conseil d'Etat [official website], the country's highest administrative tribunal, held [decision, in French] Monday that Sikhs have to remove their turbans to be photographed for driver's licenses as a matter of public security. The ruling overturned an earlier decision [JURIST report] by the same tribunal made on procedural grounds in December, when the Council held that a directive by the Interior Ministry on the removal of turbans for identification purposes was not valid because it had not been specifically endorsed by the French Transport Ministry. The Transport Ministry subsequently issued an order that the Interior Ministry regulation would apply to it, and the case went forward again. Read the Council's press release on its latest ruling.

The decision is expected to stir controversy in France where religious minorities, including the country's small number of Sikhs, already feel targeted by a recent law restricting the wearing of religious dress - including Sikh turbans - in public schools [JURIST report; text of law, in French]. Sikh tradition prescribes the wearing of a turban as a sacred duty for men. United Sikhs [advocacy website], which helped bring the case decided Monday, provides background materials on its "Right to Turban" campaign in France. AP has more.

12:11 PM ET - United Sikhs said Tuesday that it has asked French President Jacques Chirac to intervene in the case, and the lawyer for complainant Shingara Mann Singh has said that he is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [official website]. BBC News has more.

[JURIST] Leading Tuesday's international brief, Ugandan opposition leader Kizza Besigye [BBC profile] has been found not guilty of rape by a High Court judge who ridiculed the disarray of the prosecutor's office in presenting jumbled and often mislabeled evidence and even implied that the woman accusing Besigye was dishonest, saying that while one might forget the day of a rape, no one would forget the month. Besigye was charged with rape [JURIST report] along with three other allegedly trumped-up criminal offenses shortly after declaring his intent to run against Ugandan incumbent President Yoweri Musevini [BBC profile] in February's elections. Besigye still faces charges on treason, conspiracy, and illegal firearms possession. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Uganda [JURIST news archive]. The Daily Monitor has local coverage. BBC News has more.

In other international legal news ...

• Zimbabwe's controversial NGO bill [HRW backgrounder] is being "polished up" before being presented to the Zimbabwean Parliament this month, according to Zimbabwean Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa. Chinamasa told reporters that the bill was being fine-tuned before being re-presented to the parliament after Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe [BBC profile] refused to sign the bill [JURIST report] in May 2005 with no explanation. Critics of the bill have accused the government of trying to stamp out all NGOs that seek to promote democratic government, while Mugabe's cabinet continues to claim that certain, unnamed NGOs are actually fronts for western governments seeking to topple the Mugabe administration. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Zimbabwe [JURIST news archive]. ZimOnline has local coverage.
  
  
• A pro-independence group in the Angolan province of Cabinda [government website] has announced that it is filing a request with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] for the prosecutor's office to conduct an investigation into alleged Angolan war crimes. The statement accused Angolan forces of "rape, summary execution, and genocide" at the direction of the Angolan government [official website] in the province which produces more than 60 percent of Angola's oil export. The statement also claimed that local and international NGOs had helped the group compile monthly reports documenting governmental abuses since 2002. The Rome Statute [PDF text], the ICC's governing document, is silent on whether non-state entities may request an investigation, but gives the prosecutor the power to open an investigation if sufficient evidence of crimes exists. IRIN News has more.
  
  
• UN special rapporteur on Sudan Sima Samar told reporters on Monday after a ten-day visit to Sudan [government website] that the judicial system was incapable of effectively prosecuting those involved in human rights abuses in Darfur [JURIST news archive]. She said that all of the cases she observed at the war crimes tribunal set up by Sudan had only prosecuted pre-Darfur crimes or low-ranking individuals, completely avoiding individuals in positions of military or political power in Darfur. Khartoum has repeatedly stated that it will resist any attempts at international prosecution of alleged war crimes offenders by the ICC [JURIST report]. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Sudan [JURIST news archive]. The Sudan Tribune has local coverage.

[JURIST] US government lawyers on Monday asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit [PDF complaint; JURIST report] filed by two rights groups against US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [official profile] over detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First [advocacy websites] filed the suit on behalf of nine former detainees [ACLU profiles], alleging that Rumsfeld and other top military officials bear direct responsibility for torture and abuse committed by US personnel and their actions violate the US Constitution and international law.

In its motion to dismiss [PDF text], the DOJ argues that Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 US Code 2679 [text; DOJ backgrounder], barring civil lawsuits against federal officials for conduct performed within the scope of employment. At issue in the case is a 2002 memo [text] signed by Rumsfeld which authorizes interrogation techniques for detainees, including "stress positions," 20-hour interrogations, use of dogs, and prolonged isolation. Though the DOJ argues that the memo was within Rumsfeld's scope of employment, HRF lawyer Deborah Pearlstein criticized the argument [press release], saying that "the Secretary's position that ordering torture was 'within the scope of his employment' is a stunning abdication of the responsibility of command." The DOJ also argued that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear cases seeking money damages for alleged violations of international law. The ACLU provides additional background on the case, including an overview of the legal basis of the claims. Reuters has more.

[JURIST Europe] UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke [official profile] is expected to propose legislation that would allow the use of wiretap evidence in British courtrooms, specifically in cases of organized crime and terrorism, according to British press reports Tuesday. The practice is already common in the US, Australia, and other European countries to secure convictions. There has been a recent change in the traditional opposition [Guardian report] to the use of wiretap evidence by police, security services and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) [official website], which now say they would not protest the measure but want strict safeguards included in new laws, specifically to protect their agents or covert techniques.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair [JURIST news archive] is thought to favor the potential legislation. The use of phone-tap evidence is also supported by some civil rights groups who believe that it will allow for more transparency in convictions. Others have expressed reservations, suggesting that the move will not make as much difference as suggested and could potentially cause problems. From London, the Independent has local coverage.

Tatyana Margolin is an Associate Editor for JURIST Europe, reporting European legal news from a European perspective. She is based in the UK.

[JURIST Europe] German Chancellor Angela Merkel [official profile in German; BBC profile] announced [recorded audio, in German] Monday that her cabinet had approved a new bill to jump-start the biggest constitutional reform in Germany since 1949. The bill is meant to undo the entanglement of federal and state governments that was created after World War II as a check on central power and to speed up the political decision-making process. Because Germany’s current government is a coalition of the country’s top two parties – Merkel’s Christian Democrats [official website] and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) [official website in German; Wikipedia backgrounder] – a consensus on reform has become possible, and it's seen as a test for Merkel’s 'grand coalition' government.

The system currently in place permits state governments to block nearly 60 percent of federal legislation. If ratified, the bill would cut the number of laws that can be vetoed by the Bundesrat [official website], the upper house of the German parliament where German states are represented, and clarify a separation of powers between federal and state governments. A two-thirds majority in both houses will have to approve the proposal. Reuters has more. The German federal government has posted a backgrounder on the constitutional reform process.

Tatyana Margolin is an Associate Editor for JURIST Europe, reporting European legal news from a European perspective. She is based in the UK.

[JURIST Europe] UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke [official profile, JURIST news archive] protested the failure of the United States to ratify the latest US-UK extradition treaty [official PDF text], ratified by the UK parliament in 2003, at a meeting Monday with visiting US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile; JURIST news archive]. Since ratifying the treaty itself, the UK has extradited 12 offenders to the US, whereas the US has extradited only five, including only one in 2005. Congress’ failure to formally ratify the treaty means that Britain cannot prosecute criminals residing in the US, including suspected pedophiles and sex offenders. 145 MPs have signed a Commons motion [transcript of debate] demanding that Britain cease extraditions to the US until the treaty is ratified.

A senior US official has suggested that US ratification may have been stalled by pressure from the strong Irish-American lobby, which fears requests for the extradition of members of Irish Republican Army [MIPT profile], although British authorities say they are not interested in this in the wake of the Good Friday agreement [BBC backgrounder]. The last ratified version of the treaty dates back to 1972 and contains a statute of limitation which forbids extraditions for offences that occurred more than six years ago. This makes it especially problematic to extradite in cases of child abuse, where victims may not come forward until adulthood. From London, the Times has local coverage.

Tatyana Margolin is an Associate Editor for JURIST Europe, reporting European legal news from a European perspective. She is based in the UK.