[JURIST] Former Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [JURIST news archive] rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba [ICC profile; JURIST news archive] appeared before the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] for the first time Friday after Belgium's Court of Cassation approved his transfer [JURIST report] on Tuesday. Bemba was identified before the court [ICC press release; hearing transcript, PDF] and said that he had been informed of the charges against him. Bemba's lawyers also lodged preliminary objections to the procedures followed by Belgian authorities in his May arrest [JURIST report]. The court has scheduled the next step in the proceedings for November 4, when it will a hold confirmation hearing before making a final decision on proceeding to trial.

Bemba has been charged [arrest warrant, PDF, in French] with war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) [BBC backgrounder] between October 2002 and March 2003. ICC prosecutors say he is responsible for rape, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, and pillaging. Bemba's arrest warrant is the first issued by the ICC in its investigation of large-scale sexual offenses [ICC press release] in the CAR. The New York Times has more. BBC has additional coverage.

Bemba, now a member of the Congolese Senate, was elected to office after losing a run-off presidential election [JURIST report] to Joseph Kabila [BBC profile], who in December 2006 became the first freely-elected president of the DRC since 1960. After the election, Bemba's private militia force led a violent campaign against government troops until the DRC Supreme Court rejected his election challenge [JURIST report]. In the process, Bemba's supporters set fire to the Supreme Court building [JURIST report]. Following the clashes, the chief prosecutor of the DRC issued a warrant for Bemba's arrest [JURIST report], and he fled to Europe. A court in CAR referred the original war crimes charges [JURIST report] to the ICC in April 2006.

[JURIST] A US district court judge Thursday released two US Marines who had previously been jailed for refusing to testify about the deaths of Iraqi detainees during the November 2004 offensive [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in Fallujah [USMC timeline; JURIST news archive]. Marine Corps Sgt. Ryan G. Weemer [JURIST news archive] and Sgt. Jermaine Nelson were held in contempt of court [JURIST news report] in June and May, respectively, after appearing before a grand jury and refusing to answer questions about the role of former Marine Sgt. Jose Nazario [JURIST news archive] in the deaths of the detainees. US District Judge Stephen Larson declined to rescind his contempt rulings, but released the Marines after their attorneys argued that the detentions would never compel them to testify. In addition to the contempt charges, Nelson and Weemer each face six counts of dereliction of duty and one count of murder [USMC charge sheet] for their roles in the Fallujah killings. The Los Angeles Times more. The Marine Corps Times has additional coverage.

In July 2007, the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) [official website] announced investigations of at least 10 Marines [JURIST report] after Weemer admitted during a polygraphed job interview with the US Secret Service that he had witnessed indiscriminate killings in Fallujah. Military journalist Nathaniel Helms later corroborated that account, reporting that he witnessed Marines execute subdued Iraqi prisoners, whose bodies were later buried under rubble from an air strike. In May, a federal judge ruled that Nazario could stand trial [JURIST report] in civilian court over the deaths.

[JURIST] Officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] told journalists Thursday that the trial of Congolese ex-militia leader Thomas Lubanga [ICC materials; BBC profile] would proceed as planned after evidentiary problems which had threatened the case were settled, according to AFP. Late last month, the ICC imposed an indefinite stay [order, PDF; JURIST report] on Lubanga's war crimes trial after it found that the prosecution had used confidentiality agreements to withhold possible exonerating evidence and concluded that Lubanga would be unable to receive a fair trial. The court subsequently ordered Lubanga set free but agreed to suspend his release for five days, giving the prosecution time to appeal. The appeal [PDF], filed Wednesday, requested an indefinite suspension of Lubanga's release while the procedural issues concerning its use of the confidentiality agreements were addressed. The prosecution contends that the previously withheld evidence has now been released to all parties involved in the trial. AFP quoted ICC President Judge Philippe Kirsch [official profile] as saying that the procedural issues would be resolved "shortly". AFP has more.

Once the leader of the Union of Patriotic Congolese [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], Lubanga is charged with using child soldiers [JURIST report; BBC report] in his militia, which is believed to have committed large-scale human rights abuses in Congo's violent Ituri district [HRW backgrounder]. He became the first war crimes defendant to appear before the ICC after he was taken into custody [JURIST reports] in March 2006. Lubanga's long-delayed trial [JURIST report] is scheduled to be the ICC's first since its creation in 2002.

[JURIST] White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said [press briefing transcript] Thursday that the administration is still working to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center [JURIST news archive], but suggested that a recent US Supreme Court decision could lead to the release of "dangerous detainees" into the US. The Court ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in Boumediene v. Bush last month that "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge their detention by filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court [JURIST report]. Perino said that if a detainee successfully challenged their detention and couldn't be repatriated to their home country, they could either be immediately released into the US or held for no longer than six months under current immigration laws. She said the administration was still deciding how to close the base and comply with the decision:

...The Department of Defense has been working for years to try to get many of these enemy combatants repatriated, and in fact we've gotten hundreds repatriated back to their country where they would be held securely. But some detainees have been released, and some have returned to the battlefield, and some have even become suicide bombers. And we have to be really careful about what we're going to do with these detainees...

But there is considered judgment from many federal government lawyers, all the way up to the Attorney General of the United States, that it is a very real possibility that a dangerous detainee could be released into the United States as a result of this Supreme Court decision...

I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods. And there might be some lawyers that you can find that would say that's a stretch, but what I would submit to you is that they don't know either, and that the Attorney General of the United States, who has been intimately involved in trying these types of cases, and in fact oversaw the first World Trade Center bombing case, he's very concerned about the situation. And so you can bet that he is at the table as well, trying to figure this out so we make sure that we don't endanger any citizen of the United States.

[JURIST] Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers [official profile; JURIST news archive] said Thursday that there may be applications of Sharia law [CFR backgrounder] in the British legal system during a speech [PDF text] at the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre [official website]. Phillips' comments were in support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams [official profile], who controversially said earlier this year that certain aspects of Sharia could be applied to resolve some civil disputes [JURIST report] between British Muslims. Phillips said:

there is widespread misunderstanding in this country as to the nature of Sharia law. Sharia consists of a set of principles governing the way that one should live one’s life in accordance with the will of God. These principles are based on the Qu’ran, as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad and interpreted by Islamic scholars. The principles have much in common with those of other religions. They do not include forced marriage or the repression of women. Compliance with them requires a high level of personal conduct, including abstinence from alcohol. I understand that it is not the case that for a Muslim to lead his or her life in accordance with these principles will be in conflict with the requirements of the law in this country.

What would be in conflict with the law would be to impose certain sanctions for failure to comply with Sharia principles. Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands, or death for those who fail to comply with the law. And the view of many of Sharia law is coloured by violent extremists who invoke it, perversely, to justify terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing, which I understand to be in conflict with Islamic principles. There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction. Nor, when I was in Oman, did I find that such penalties formed any part of the law applied there. It is true that they have the death penalty for that intentional murder, but they do not apply any of the other forms of corporal punishment I have just listed.

It remains the fact that in Muslim countries where the law is founded on Sharia principles, the law includes sanctions for failure to observe those principles and there are courts to try those who are alleged to have breached those laws. The definition of the law and the sanctions to be applied for breach of it differ from one Muslim country to another. In some countries the courts interpret Sharia Law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts....

[But i]t was not very radical [for Archbishop Williams] to advocate embracing Sharia Law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop’s suggestion. It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country.

Those who provide financial services in this country are subject to regulation in order to protect their customers and that regulation accommodates financial institutions or products that comply with Sharia principles. There are three Islamic banks authorised by the Financial Services Authority to carry on business in the United Kingdom. A number of Sukuk issues have been listed on the London Stock Exchange. In May this year Europe’s first Islamic insurance company or “takaful” provider was authorised by the Financial Services Authority.

[JURIST] US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad [official profile] submitted a draft resolution in the UN Security Council [official website] Thursday calling for sanctions against Zimbabwe's newly reinstalled president Robert Mugabe [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and eleven of his government and security aides. The sanctions are said to include an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, and travel bans and asset freezes on Mugabe and his associates. Khalilzad said in a statement [press release] that Mugabe and his regime had ignored a statement by the UN Security Council [text; JURIST report] condemning the increased violence surrounding the recent presidential run-off elections [JURIST news archive] and that calls from the international community to postpone the run-off had been disregarded:

So we have proposed a resolution that will impose targeted sanctions on those that are responsible for the political crisis. With the expectation and hope that they will be incentivized to cooperate to resolving the crisis of legitimacy, to creating a government there that represents – genuinely represents the legitimate representatives of the people of Zimbabwe.