[JURIST] The US Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland [diocesan website; diocesan website on clergy abuse] has settled child sex abuse lawsuits with about 150 people, court-appointed mediators US District Judge Michael Hogan and Oregon Circuit Judge Lyle Velure announced [news release, PDF] Monday. They reported that "the vast majority of the known tort claims were settled...[and] the Archdiocese has agreed to pay...the few remaining unresolved known tort claims...and future tort claims." The amount of the settlement was not disclosed, but Hogan said the diocese had more than $50 million in assets of its own in which to cover the settlements. AP has more. The Seattle Times has additional coverage.

The Portland archdiocese, which filed for Chapter 11 [JURIST report; text, PDF] in 2004, was the first one to file for bankruptcy in the face of civil litigation over sex abuse claims. Since then, the dioceses of Tuscon, Spokane, and Davenport have also filed for Chapter 11 protection in the wake of hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits [JURIST news archive] filed against the clergy. In June, a federal judge allowed [JURIST report] a sexual abuse lawsuit against the Portland archdiocese to continue, rejecting the Vatican's bid to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The lawsuit, filed in 2002 [AP report] in the US District Court for the District of Oregon [official website], alleged that the Vatican, the Archdiocese of Portland and the archbishop of Chicago conspired to protect a priest by transferring him from city to city, even though the church knew he had a history of committing sexual abuse. Earlier this month, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles settled [JURIST report] 45 sexual abuse lawsuits for $60 million.

[JURIST] Outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan [official profile] on Monday urged the US not to abandon "its own ideals and objectives" in the war against terrorism, stressing that "human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity." In his last speech [transcript] as secretary-general, delivered at the Truman Presidential Library in Missouri, Annan also pushed UN Security Council reform, saying that the body's membership "reflects the reality of 1945, not of today's world."

During his remarks, Annan outlined five lessons he learned during his 10-year leadership of the United Nations, including "that both security and development ultimately depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law." Annan said:

Although increasingly interdependent, our world continues to be divided – not only by economic differences, but also by religion and culture. That is not in itself a problem. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other. But if our different communities are to live together in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and our shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law.

That is vital for development, too. Both foreign investors and a country's own citizens are more likely to engage in productive activity when their basic rights are protected and they can be confident of fair treatment under the law. And policies that genuinely favor economic development are much more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard.

In short, human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that Right Has Might." That's why this country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism. When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.

And states need to play by the rules towards each other, as well as towards their own citizens. That can sometimes be inconvenient, but ultimately what matters is not convenience. It is doing the right thing. No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose – for broadly shared aims – in accordance with broadly accepted norms.

No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many do suffer from too little – and the international community is among them. This we must change.

The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level. As Harry Truman said, "We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please."

[JURIST] A federal judge has accepted the prosecution's latest proposal to limit the amount of detail former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense website; JURIST news archive] can introduce at trial concerning classified intelligence. In a sealed ruling Monday, US District Judge Reggie Walton tempered an earlier ruling [JURIST report] that Libby must be allowed to present certain classified evidence to the jury in the CIA leak trial [JURIST news archive] supporting Libby's contention that he innocently mis-remembered facts and did not intentionally misrepresent his knowledge of the leak due to the heavy volume of his work as chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby is charged [indictment, PDF; JURIST report] with obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with the investigation into the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame [JURIST news archive].

Following last month's decision, initially posted online by the court but afterwards removed, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald [official website] sought to limit the level of detail Libby can go into at trial, and this proposal was accepted in Walton's Monday ruling. AP has more.

[JURIST] An Italian court has set a hearing for January 9 to determine whether to issue indictments for over 30 US and Italian intelligence agents in the alleged kidnapping and extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] of Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr [Wikipedia profile; JURIST news archive]. Italian prosecutors last week asked a judge to issue indictments [JURIST report] for 26 US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] agents and five officials from the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [official website], including former SISMI chief Nicola Pollari. Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, claims he was tortured after being grabbed off a street in Milan and ultimately sent to Egypt. If Judge Caterina Interlandi determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial in the case, the trial would be the first criminal prosecution stemming from US rendition practices.

In October, prosecutors said they had completed their investigation [JURIST report] into the incident and would once again press for the extradition of 26 American agents [JURIST report] believed to be involved in the case. If extradition is once again denied, Milan prosecutor Armando Spataro has said he would be forced to try the US agents in absentia [JURIST report]. This summer, several Italian intelligence agents were arrested [JURIST report], and last month the Italian cabinet removed Pollari [JURIST report] from his post, despite his denials of involvement [JURIST report] in the incident. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged China Monday to "repeal restrictions on lawyers handling collective disputes and representing protesters." In a new report [text; press release], HRW slammed rules adopted by the government-controlled All China Lawyers Association [group website, in Chinese; English backgrounder] in March, which place restrictions on lawyers representing plaintiffs in cases brought by 10 or more people. The Guiding Opinions on Lawyers Handling Mass Cases [text] require lawyers to "accept guidance" from the government. HRW said: "The new restrictions signal an end to a potentially promising era of legal reform and may even exacerbate widespread social unrest as citizens are denied meaningful legal avenues to solve disputes often caused by local officials’ abuses of power."

According to the report's summary [text]:

An independent legal profession is critical to the ability of ordinary people to exercise their fundamental rights—such as freedom of expression, association, assembly, and petition—under Chinese law, the Chinese constitution, and international law. Constraining the ability of lawyers to litigate on their behalf is tantamount to constraining those rights. Even though many of the provisions of the Guiding Opinions are aimed at the "rights protection lawyers," in reality they fundamentally harm the entire profession by limiting its independence and legitimizing the interference of local governments in professional processes. Even less politically sensitive initiatives that have been endorsed by the government, such as public interest litigation in consumer rights and environmental protection areas, could find themselves in jeopardy under the new Guiding Opinions.

Along with recent attacks on and the detention or arrest of prominent lawyers, and in a context where the government views the activism of lawyers as glimmerings of a legal opposition, the promulgation of the Guiding Opinions may presage even more restrictions on the activities of lawyers. The Chinese government should be aware that restricting access to legal avenues for solving disputes may deepen the sense of futility of the public in the legal system. Perversely, these restrictions may actually lead to more protests, further fuelling unrest across the country. Putting a lid on the activities of lawyers may remove a vital pressure release valve for the one-party system.

Human Rights Watch urges the ACLA and the Chinese government to repeal the Guiding Opinions and its local variants. It is not the role of lawyers to protect social and political stability. Their duty is to represent their clients in an ethical and professional manner. Instead of enacting regressive regulations, the government should enact statutes that guarantee full independence of the Chinese Bar as a preliminary step to providing effective protection to lawyers discharging their duty as required by international standards on lawyers and the judiciary.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in two cases Monday, including Carey v. Musladin [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court held that a federal appeals court improperly overturned a state court ruling allowing a murder victim's family to wear buttons depicting the victim's face during a criminal trial. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated Mathew Musladin's 32-year prison sentence for first-degree murder, asserting that the buttons deprived Musladin, who pleaded self-defense, of a fair trial by tacitly indicating that he acted as the instigator in the underlying shooting. During trial, Musladin's lawyer requested the judge ban the buttons, which family members wore in plain sight of the jury, and the Ninth Circuit ruled [text, PDF] that the buttons created an outside influence that impermissibly affected the jury and his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 USC 2254(d)(1) [text] by finding that the state court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." The Court reasoned that:

In contrast to state-sponsored courtroom practices, the effect on a defendant's fair-trial rights of the spectator conduct to which Musladin objects is an open question in this Court's jurisprudence. This Court has never addressed a claim that such private-actor courtroom conduct was so inherently prejudicial that it deprived a defendant of a fair trial. And although the Court articulated the test for inherent prejudice that applies to state conduct in Williams and Flynn, we have never applied that test to spectators' conduct. Indeed, part of that test — asking whether the practices furthered an essential state interest — suggests that those cases apply only to state-sponsored practices.

Reflecting the lack of guidance from this Court, lower courts have diverged widely in their treatment of defendants' spectator-conduct claims....

Given the lack of holdings from this Court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators' courtroom conduct of the kind involved here, it cannot be said that the state court "unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law."

[JURIST] Over 20,000 people protested in Pakistan Sunday calling on the government to withdraw new legislation that allows rape cases to be tried in either secular or Islamic courts. The Protection of Women Bill, signed [JURIST report] by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf [official website; BBC profile] earlier this month, amends portions of the Hudood Ordinances [Pakistan government backgrounder, PDF], which limited rape action to Islamic courts applying Sharia law. More than 20,000 Muslim traditionalists participated in the protests, and while over 300 police were called to monitor the area, there were no reports of violence.

The Hudood Ordinances required a rape victim find four witnesses to testify that she was assaulted, but the new law allows judges to decide if individual rape cases should be tried in criminal court, which does not require the four-witness rule. The new law also reduces the evidentiary burden necessary for conviction, and substitutes a fine and five-year prison term for persons found guilty of having sex outside of marriage. AP has more.

[JURIST] Thousands of Romanian prisoners protested Sunday demanding improved conditions in overcrowded prisons after a bill was rejected last week by a committee of the Romanian Parliament [official website]. The bill would have granted early release to approximately 10,000 prisoners with less than five-year sentences. Nearly 6,000 inmates in 24 prisons across Romania refused food, set fire to sheets or banged on doors and windows, calling for better conditions. In many of the country's jails, prisoners have to share beds and are not given exercise privileges because the low number of available guards cannot monitor those activities.

Nati Meir [official profile], who sponsored the bill, urged the inmates to stop protesting because he said it would not bolster their petition for amnesty. Romanian Justice Minister Monica Macovei [official profile; Wikipedia profile] said Sunday that Romania has plans to build more prisons to alleviate the overcrowding problem in the country's current facilities. AP has more.

[JURIST] Chileans reacted to the death [JURIST report] of former dictator General Augusto Pinochet [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in divergent ways Sunday, with some protesting that he died without ever facing trial for human rights violations committed during his regime, others celebrating the news of his death with champagne, and still others some mourning and praising Pinochet for saving the country from communism. Police turned tear gas and water cannons on several protests as demonstrators set fire barricades to block traffic and threw rocks. Chilean Deputy Interior Minister Felipe Harboe [official profile] urged peace in the country, citing the injuries of 23 police officers and several arrests of demonstrators. AP has more.

International human rights groups meanwhile denounced the fact that Pinochet was never tried for nearly 3,200 killings of political prisoners during his 1973-90 rule. Amnesty International [advocacy website] released a statement [text] saying "Pinochet's death should be a wake-up call for the authorities in Chile and for governments everywhere, reminding them of the importance of speedy justice for human rights crimes, something Pinochet himself has now escaped." José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director of Human Rights Watch [advocacy website], nonetheless expressed optimism [press release] that the London arrest [BBC report] of Pinochet in 1998 for rights violations was "the start of an effort to bring the world’s most powerful abusers to justice." AP has more.

ALSO ON JURIST  Topic: Augusto Pinochet | Op-ed: The 'Pinochet Precedent': A Mixed Legacy for Human Rights