[JURIST] The trial of former Kosovo prime minister and Kosovo Liberation Army [FAS backgrounder] commander Ramush Haradinaj [BBC profile] and two Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighters, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj [Trial Watch profiles], began Monday before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive]. In her opening remarks, chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte [BBC profile] called Haradinaj a warlord and a mobster in uniform who committed "ugly, cruel and violent crimes." The defendants face 37 counts of war crimes, including murder, persecution, and rape [amended indictment, PDF], but Haradinaj pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to all charges before the tribunal late last week.

Haradinaj was a senior commander of the KLA, the ethnic Albanian guerrilla force that opposed Slobodan Milosevic [advocacy website] during the 1998-1999 Kosovo war [Wikipedia backgrounder]. Haradinaj, who was indicted [initial indictment, PDF] by United Nations prosecutors in 2005, originally appeared with Balaj and Brahimaj before the ICTY last year, where they pleaded not guilty to the original 37 charges entered against them [JURIST report]. AP has more.

[JURIST] A New Jersey superior court judge Monday upheld a Friday jury verdict [DowJones report] for Merck & Co [corporate website], finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with its painkiller Vioxx [FDA backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Judge Carol Higbee rejected a motion by plaintiffs attorney Mark Lanier disputing a finding that the drug company had warned doctors prescribing Vioxx that a 2004 study showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke in patients who took it for longer than 18 months; Lanier represents the estate of a deceased man whose fatal heart attack is alleged to have been caused by the drug.

Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market [press release] in September of 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit [JURIST report], ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge Reggie B. Walton [official profile] refused to answer a jury question [JURIST report] Monday in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense website; JURIST news archive] trial on the level of proof that would have to be met to find the former vice presidential aide guilty. The jury wanted to know whether in order to satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt they had to find it would not be "humanly possible" for Libby to completely forget conversations which witnesses had testified took place. The jury resumed deliberations Monday after Walton said the question was too vague to be properly answered.

Lawyers made their final arguments [JURIST report] last Tuesday, with the defense arguing that Libby was a scapegoat for presidential aide Karl Rove's disclosures. In its final remarks the prosecution argued that Libby was merely trying to cover up a potentially illegal intelligence leak of former undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby is not charged with leaking Plame's identity, but instead faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges [indictment, PDF ; JURIST report] in connection with the investigation into the leak. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Less than half of terrorism suspects arrested in the United Kingdom after September 11, 2001 under the Terrorism Act 2000 [text] were ever charged with any crime, according to figures [report] released Monday by the UK Home Office [official website]. Over 1,126 people were arrested between the Sept. 11 attacks and the end of 2006, but only 221 were charged with terrorism-related offenses. Of those, 40 have been convicted, but 98 are still awaiting trial. Another 652 were released without being charged.

Although the Home Office did not include any statistics about race or religion, critics contend that UK anti-terrorism laws [HO materials] unfairly target Muslims and those of middle-eastern descent. The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) [advocacy website] said that the terror regulations are far too broad [press release], so that normally innocuous activities, such as wearing buttons supporting organizations from North Ireland, were now being treated as terrorism convictions. IHRC also expressed concern at reports of alleged police brutality in enforcing anti-terrorism measures. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Former Saddam-era deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], brought before the Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] Monday to testify against six defendants accused of genocide in the Anfal trial [JURIST news archive; BBC trial timeline], instead denied that Hussein's government had ever carried out any such attacks. Aziz insisted that Iraq did not have the chemical weapons necessary for the alleged poison gas attacks that killed 5600 Kurds in northern Iraq, instead fingering Iran as the culprit. Aziz went on to praise Hussein [AFP report], continuing even after he was ordered to be be silent by the chief judge. AP has more.

The six defendants are all former Hussein regime officials charged in connection with the deaths of some 180,000 Kurds during the so-called "Anfal" campaigns [HRW backgrounder] of the 1980s. One of the six, Hussein's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], also known as "Chemical Ali," allegedly ordered the gas attacks. If convicted, the defendants could be sentenced to death by hanging. In December 2006, prosecutors presented video evidence of the gas attacks, but later that month two co-defendants said Hussein's regime had only used conventional weapons [JURIST reports] against the Kurds. Aziz is suspected of involvement in the deaths of Kurds and Shiites in 1991, but his lawyers say that he has not yet been charged.

[JURIST] The lower house of the Jordanian parliament [official website] approved a bill Sunday that would subject journalists to jail sentences for defaming any religion protected under the country's constitution [text] - i.e. Islam, Christianity or Judaism - or "offending the prophets" by their writing or by cartoons. Imprisonment could also result from any "insult to religious sentiments and beliefs, fueling sectarian strife or racism," or "slanders or libels" against any individual. Journalists could also be fined for publications offensive to "prophets and religions." The legislation now goes to Jordan's upper house. The Jordanian Press Association [official website] has already criticized the measure as a weakening of press freedom. AFP has more.

In May 2006 a Jordanian court convicted the editors of two national newspapers [JURIST report] and sentenced them to two months' imprisonment for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad [JURIST news archive] that incited protests and violence across the Muslim world earlier in the year after first appearing in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

[JURIST] Ugandan judges began a week-long general strike Monday to protest last Thursday's siege of the High Court and seizure of defendants by government forces. Court witnesses said that six defendants were rearrested by security forces in court after having been granted bail. The defendants' lawyer was also beaten unconscious by security forces. Elias Kisawuzi, spokesperson for the judiciary, told Reuters that the "[courts] are not registering any new cases" and that the judges would decide whether to continue the strike on Friday. The state-owned Sunday Vision said the defendants were rearrested on separate murder charges.

The six defendants were charged with being members of the People's Redemption Army (PRA) [Wikipedia backgrounder] and plotting a rebellion with opposition leader Kizza Besigye [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. In April of last year, Besigye pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to treason charges. Reuters has more. Sunday Vision has local coverage.

[JURIST] Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Monday denounced a weekend raid [JURIST report; UK MOD press release] by UK-led coalition forces and Iraqi soldiers on the local Basra headquarters building of the National Iraqi Intelligence Agency, ordering an investigation into the incident and declaring that those responsible would be punished. A British military spokesman nonetheless defended the legitimacy of the operation, recalling Maliki's own insistence that no one be above the law and saying that the force level use to gain entry to the building was "appropriately robust." The weekend operation uncovered evidence of torture of some thirty prisoners at the facility; coalition forces arrested five persons suspected of death squad activity or links to militant groups. The Telegraph has more.

In late December British troops supported by Iraqi forces raided a Basra prison unit [JURIST report], freeing 127 prisoners detained in squalid conditions by a rogue Basra police squad suspected of torturing its prisoners. British troops raided the same Basra prison [JURIST report] in September 2005 to free two British soldiers who had been captured and detained.

[JURIST] A former Sudanese militia leader recently accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court [official website] denied attacking Darfur [JURIST news archive] civilians or displacing refugees in an article published in Sudan's Al Intibaha newspaper Sunday. Ali Kushayb insisted he was assigned to the region only to protect the villagers from Arab militias.

Kushayb and Ahmed Muhammed Harun, former Interior Minister of Sudan, were the first individuals formally accused [JURIST report] by the ICC in its ongoing investigation [JURIST news archive] of the Darfur situation. ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] accused [prosecutor's statement] the two men of war crimes against civilians in four towns in West Darfur between August 2003 and March 2004. If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in two cases Monday, including Lance v. Coffman, where the Court concluded that four Republican voters in Colorado did not have standing to challenge a court-ordered congressional redistricting plan. A state judge in Colorado drew up a redistricting plan in 2002 when the state legislature was unable to agree on a plan in time for elections that year. The legislature drew up a plan in 2003 [map], but that plan was rejected [DOC text] by the Colorado Supreme Court because the state constitution allows for a new plan only once per decade. The state supreme court held that "judicially-created districts are just as binding and permanent as districts created by the General Assembly." The redistricting plan was subsequently challenged by four voters, who argued that their rights had been violated under the Elections Clause of the US Constitution, which states that the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." The US Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing, writing:

The only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law - specifically the Elections Clause - has not been followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past. It is quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing. [citations omitted] Because plaintiffs assert no particularized stake in the litigation, we hold that they lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim.

[JURIST] Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe [BBC profile; official website, in Japanese] said Monday that the US House of Representatives' proposed resolution [text; H Res 121 summary], which urges Japan to apologize to women who were forced into sexual slavery [JURIST report] during World War II, "is not based on objective facts." Last Thursday, Abe denied [JURIST report] that the Imperial Japanese Army forced women into prostitution during World War II, and said that there was little proof that any of the approximately 200,000 comfort women [SFSU backgrounder] were coerced into prostitution.

Abe's statements echoed the sentiments of Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, who last month described the proposed House resolution as "regrettable" [JURIST report] and not factual. South Korean foreign minister Song Min Soon characterized Abe's comments as being "not helpful" to Japanese-Korean relations, and urged Abe to "face the truth" about Japan's militant past, in which many Korean women were allegedly victimized. Many Japanese nationalists have urged the Japanese government to revisit the 1993 Kono Statement [text], in which the government offered its "sincere apologies and remorse" to the victims. In 1995, Japan established the private Asian Women's Fund [official website] to compensate the surviving victims, but many have rejected the compensation due to its unofficial nature. The fund's mandate expires at the end of the month. Bloomberg has more.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] Monday refused to expedite its consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking review of the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) [PDF text; JURIST news archive]. Two Guantanamo detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr [Trial Watch profiles], filed the motion to expedite [PDF text; JURIST report] last week, asking the Court to review the MCA provision which prevents federal courts from hearing detainees' habeas corpus challenges. The detainees asked the court to review the habeas-stripping provision as it was applied in two separate cases: the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit last month upheld the dismissal of many habeas cases [JURIST report], and a district judge last December dismissed Hamdan's habeas appeal [JURIST report], finding the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the court-stripping provision. Lawyers for the detainees had hoped that the court would grant certiorari in the appeal and would schedule oral arguments for the current term.

According to Monday's Supreme Court order list [PDF text], Justices Souter and Breyer would have granted the motion to expedite consideration of the certiorari petition.

4:59 PM ET - In a separate appeal of last month's ruling [PDF text] from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upholding the habeas-stripping provision of the MCA as applied to "enemy combatants," lawyers from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights asked the Supreme Court Monday to review the appeals court's decision. Along with the petition for certiorari [PDF text; appendix, PDF; CCR press release], lawyers for the detainees also filed a motion to expedite [PDF text], asking the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments in the case in early May. AP has more. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.

[JURIST] Mubarak Hussain bin Abul Hasim, a Bangladeshi who had been detained for five-years at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], told AFP following his release from Bangladeshi detention last Thursday that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay gave electric shocks and subjected the detainees to low temperature cells, where Mubarak spent "two days straight without food and without any clothes." Mubarak also alleges that the guards desecrated the Koran [HRW backgrounder] by kicking and throwing it into the toilet. Mubarak, who was repatriated to Bangladesh from Guantanamo [DOD press release] in December 2006, is out on bail on charges that he failed to produce a passport on his return to Bangladesh.

Last November, former detainee Murat Kurnaz [Amnesty profile; JURIST news archive] alleged that he was subjected to systematic torture [JURIST report], including electric shocks, having his head submerged in water and being shackled to the ceiling for days at a time. Kurnaz also alleged that guards sometimes refused to feed him, once for 20 days. In June 2006, Guantanamo detainees alleged that guards instigated [JURIST report] an violent clash [JURIST report] when the guards attempted to search the detainees' Korans. The US military denied the allegations [JURIST report] and said that the guards were lured into a trap by staged suicide attempts. The US currently holds approximately 385 detainees under the label of "enemy combatants" [JURIST news archive]. AFP has more.

[JURIST] Chief US military commissions prosecutor Col. Morris Davis (USAF) has criticized the conduct of the US military lawyer for Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks [JURIST news archive], suggesting that Major Michael Mori (USMC) [NineMSN profile] has been playing politics with his case outside the bounds of proper legal representation. On Saturday, The Australian newspaper quoted Davis as saying "Certainly in the U.S. it would not be tolerated having a U.S. Marine in uniform actively inserting himself into the political process. It is very disappointing to see that happening in Australia, and if that was any of my prosecutors, they would be held accountable.” Mori has been outspoken in his defense of Hicks [JURIST news archive], condemning military commissions [JURIST news archive] as "kangaroo courts" and speaking out publicly [ABC WT report] on the case on seven visits to Australia. Davis said Mori could actually be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice [text] for speaking contemptuously of top US officials contrary to UCMJ in breach of Article 88 [text], but insisted in subsequent comments Sunday that he was not threatening Mori with court-martial and had no power to bring such an action against him.

Military commission defense lawyers responded to the Australian media reports over the weekend by praising Mori and insisting that he was simply being vigorous in the defense of his client, conduct that has won him praise even in Australian governmental circles for evidencing what the John Howard government has thusfar insisted is the fundamental fairness of the US military commission trial process. Any military prosecution of Mori could further delay Hicks trial, but Davis alleged that delay was already part of the defense strategy [Australian report], designed to increase pressure on the Howard government to press for Hicks' release. The New York Times has more. The Melbourne Age has additional coverage.

[JURIST] A Cambodian military court has charged Kaing Khek Iev [Trial Watch profile], also known as Duch, with war crimes in an effort to keep Duch in custody until he can be tried before the Khmer Rouge genocide tribunal [JURIST news archive], a Cambodian official said Monday. Duch was arrested in 1999 on genocide charges and was subsequently charged with crimes against humanity in 2002 and war crimes last week. Cambodian military court chief Ney Thol said Monday that Cambodian law allows suspects to be detained without trial for three years on each charge but no longer than nine years since the date of arrest. Ney Thol said that if Duch's trial before the Extraordinary Chamber of the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website], the international tribunal established to try former Khmer Rouge officials, does not begin before November 2008, Duch will be released from custody.

Duch is the only former Khmer Rouge [JURIST news archive] leader currently in custody. He ran the former S-21 [Wikipedia backgrounder] prison and interrogation center, where some 17,000 people died, many of whom were tortured. Former Khmer Rouge military leader Ta Mok [Trial Watch profile] had also been in custody, but he died [JURIST report] last year. Other Khmer Rouge leaders survive but are not yet detained.

The ECCC was established by a 2001 law [PDF text] to investigate and try those responsible for the 1975-79 Cambodian genocide that led to the deaths of at least 1.5 million Cambodians by execution, forced hardship or starvation. Prosecutors have faced significant administrative, legal and linguistic obstacles in preparing cases for trial; their formal investigations only began in July [JURIST report] of last year. AFP has more.