[JURIST] The California Supreme Court [official website] on Thursday heard oral arguments in three cases [case filings] challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 [materials], the ballot measure passed in November [JURIST report] that banned same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] in the state. Equality California [advocacy website] challenged the validity [press release] of the proposition, arguing that it went against the state's constitution [materials], by stripping an entire class of people of what they said was the fundamental right to marry. It also argued that in order for such a broad change to be made, a constitutional revision, which requires not just a proposition, but approval by either two-thirds of the state's legislature or a statewide constitutional convention, was necessary. Arguing the case for the group, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) [advocacy website] said allowing such a change undermined the principles of the constitution:

Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.

Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Describing Proposition 8 as a revision to the state constitution, depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution. But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 – and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history. It is now part of the state constitution.

[JURIST] A federal judge at the US District Court for the District of New Jersey [official website] on Thursday upheld the guilty verdicts [text, PDF] reached by a jury against five men convicted of plotting to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix [official website]. The five men, Serdar Tatar, Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka, and Shain Duka, were acquitted of attempted murder, but were convicted [DOJ press release; JURIST report] in December 2008 of conspiracy to commit murder and weapons offenses. Lawyers for the five men appeared before the court Thursday to argue that the claims against their clients [case materials] were not supported by the evidence [AP report] presented, and asked the court to overturn the verdicts. The court denied the request, and upheld the jury verdicts. The defense had argued that there was no plot, but the government paid informants to get the accused to discuss one.

Federal prosecutors maintained that although the men had no ties to any terrorist organization, they were inspired by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and were planning an attack. The men face a sentence of up to life in prison. The five suspects were arrested [JURIST report] in May 2007 for allegedly plotting to sneak onto the New Jersey military base and kill soldiers. They pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] in January 2008. Their trial began [JURIST report] in October. Last March, an accomplice, Agron Abdullahu, was sentenced [JURIST report] to 20 months in prison after pleading guilty [JURIST report] to charges of conspiring to provide firearms and ammunitions to the other five men.

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [judgment text] Thursday that Russia is liable for the death of an ethnic Chechen at the hands of Russian forces in 2000, finding Russia in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights [text]. The judgment orders the Russian government to pay damages of nearly €37,000 to the victim's wife, a Russian national who brought the action after her husband was killed by Russian troops [RIA Novosti report] while chopping wood. The ECHR found the killing violated Article 2 of the Convention, which protects the right to life and prohibits extrajudicial killing. The court also found that Russia violated Articles 2 and 13, which protect the right to an effective remedy before a national authority, when it failed "to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant's husband."

The ECHR has consistently ruled against Russia in cases involving human rights violations in Chechnya. In December, the ECHR ruled against Russia in six Chechen disappearances cases [JURIST report], and ordered the country to pay €320,000 to the victims' families. In October, the ECHR issued two decisions [JURIST report] finding Russia in violation of the human rights convention in several cases concerning the deaths or abductions of Russian nationals in Chechnya in 2000. In May, the court ruled that Russia was responsible for the disappearance of a dozen people [JURIST report] during Russian armed raids in Chechnya in 2002 and 2003. In July 2007, the court ruled that Russian authorities were responsible for the shooting deaths of 11 unarmed Chechen civilians, and in June 2007 it held that Russian authorities were liable for the 2003 deaths of four Chechen family members [JURIST reports]. In early December 2008, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official profile; JURIST news archive] proposed [transcript, in Russian; JURIST report] that Russian courts become more transparent in order to restore faith in the justice system and prevent people from turning to the ECHR.

[JURIST] Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir [ICC materials, PDF; JURIST news archive] on Thursday scoffed at the warrant [text, PDF; ICC release] for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] earlier this week. Speaking to a crowd of thousands in Khartoum, Bashir said the warrant was an effort by Western countries to reassert colonial power over the country, and criticized the ICC for failing to take action in conflicts in Iraq and the Gaza Strip. Expanding on its earlier reaction [JURIST report] to the warrant, the African Union [official website] announced that it plans to petition [AFP report] the UN to have the warrant for Bashir suspended, sharing with several African and other countries the fear that it could disrupt a peace deal [UN backgrounder] in the country. Human rights groups, however, have reiterated their support for the warrant [HRW report], calling it a step forward in efforts to hold rights violators in Sudan responsible for their actions.

Also Thursday, several humanitarian aid organizations including Oxfam International and Doctors Without Borders [press releases] confirmed that they have been expelled from the country. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] has called on Sudan to allow the agencies to remain in the country [press release], voicing concerns that their removal could create a grave humanitarian crisis there.

The warrant for Bashir, issued [decision, PDF; JURIST report] on Wednesday, charged him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but did not include genocide charges. The controversial arrest warrant [JURIST news archive] had been sought by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile], who in July filed preliminary charges [text, PDF; JURIST report] against Bashir alleging genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed in the Darfur region in violation of Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute [text]. The ICC announced last week [JURIST report] that they would decide whether to issue an arrest warrant on Wednesday. The announcement came after the New York Times reported [NYT report] last month that the warrant had been issued, leading a court official quickly to issue a denial [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Court will seek INTERPOL [official website] arrest warrants for more than 100 Israelis on war crimes charges stemming from the conflict in Gaza [BBC backgrounder], prosecutors said Thursday. Iran announced in December that it would establish a court to try Gaza war crimes suspects [Reuters report] in absentia. On Monday, a report from Iranian state broadcaster Press TV [text] revealed that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were among 15 senior Israeli officials for whom Iran had sought arrest warrants under the INTERPOL constitution [Article 2 text] for charges including undue aggression, disproportionate use of military force, threatening world peace and security, crimes against humanity, and genocide. INTERPOL immediately publicly denied [press release] receiving any request from Iran to issue such warrants, noting that "INTERPOL’s Constitution strictly prohibits the Organization from making ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.'" Iranian chief prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi said Thursday that the list now includes more than 100 Israeli suspects, and that Iran will soon deliver dossiers on each to INTERPOL. Iranian Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi called the trials an Islamic duty [IRIB report]. INTERPOL reiterated Thursday that no such warrant requests have been received [Press TV report] from Iran.

Several other investigations into the Gaza conflict are pending. In January, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for an independent investigation [statement text; JURIST report] of possible war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza. International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is also attempting to gain jurisdiction over Israel [JURIST report] to investigate its actions in Gaza for alleged war crimes. Israel has already begun to consider defenses against possible war crimes charges, partly based on accusations [JURIST reports] that it used white phosphorus in a civilian area.

[JURIST] Afghanistan's human rights progress has been thwarted [UN News Centre report] by armed conflict, censorship, abuse of power, and violence against women, according to a report [text, PDF] delivered Thursday to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile]. The report says that addressing these problems requires addressing poverty, and that the Afghan government has a responsibility to help national institutions protect human rights. Pillay's report recommends that Afghanistan's government create a human rights unit in the Ministry of Justice [official website] to combat poverty faced by groups burdened by discrimination. The government must also ensure an impartial judiciary and law-enforcement body, and promote open and peaceful elections, the report says. Under Afghanistan's constitution [text], men and women have equal rights, but, according to the report, women are being prosecuted for acts Afghan law does not define as crimes: "The Government is failing to adequately protect the rights of women in Afghanistan despite constitutional guarantees and its international obligations." Another report [text, PDF] Pillay presented to the council Thursday suggests that 2008's food crisis, prompted by high food costs in the US, combined with the current economic crisis to negatively impact human-rights situations globally.

Afghanistan continues to receive criticism for its human rights record. Last week, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] released its annual 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [DOS materials], criticizing Afghanistan [JURIST report] for its continued use of child labor. In November, Pillay urged [press release] Afghan President Hamad Karzai to put a stop to executions [JURIST report] and join nations calling for a death penalty moratorium after five prisoners were executed over the course of four days. Last March, Chief Human Rights Officer Norah Niland of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan [official website] called on the Afghan government to do more to protect human rights [JURIST report] and see that human rights violators are brought to justice.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Connecticut [official website] on Thursday reversed [opinion, PDF] a former Navy signalman's conviction for material support of terrorism. Judge Mark Kravitz set aside the conviction of Hassan Abu-Jihaad, finding that the facts of the case did not support the jury's determination that Abu-Jihaad had provided either "physical assets" or "personnel" within the meaning of 18 USC § 2339A [text].

It could well be that Mr. Abu-Jihaad asked Azzam how he could help in supporting jihad, they told him to send defense information ... and Mr. Abu-jihhad did as requested. In those circumstances, the Court would have little difficulty concluding that Mr. Abu- Jihaad had volunteered himself as personnel .... On the other hand, perhaps Mr. Abu-Jihaad on a whim simply sent defense information to Azzam on one occasion, not knowing if Azzam wanted it .... In those circumstances, he surely provided defense information to someone not entitled to receive it, ... but it would be linguistically odd to describe that lone, voluntary act as making personnel available to Azzam.

[JURIST] A Singaporean member of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] terrorist group admitted his role in plotting the foiled 2001 attack of an Indonesian airport, while testifying at the trial of two Indonesian terrorist suspects in the South Jakarta District Court Thursday. Mohammad Hassan bin Saynudin said that in 2001, he and other JI operatives planned to hijack a flight from Bangkok and crash it into Singapore's Changi Airport, but the plan failed and he escaped to Indonesia. Saynudin, who has been in Indonesian custody since July for allegedly planning a failed terrorist attack in an Indonesian bar, has previously admitted his involvement in terrorist activities. Last month he told the court that he met with Osama bin Laden [Straits Times, report] and tried to recruit Indonesians for al Qaeda purposes. Saynudin's testimony came at the trial of JI members Anis Sugandi and Sukarso Abdillah, who have admitted to murder and plotting to kill Christian clergy in Indonesia. Saynudin has been charged in the same incident and faces life in prison in a separate trial.

JI has been blamed for a series of terrorist attacks on westerners including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings [BBC backgrounder], which killed 202 people. Last November, three JI members were executed [JURIST report] following convictions for their involvement in those bombings. Before their executions, the three men had called on Islamic militant groups to carry out retribution attacks, which resulted in stepped-up security in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta and a warning [text] issued by the US embassy in Indonesia. Last April, an Indonesian court convicted two JI leaders [JURIST report] on terrorism charges and recognized JI as a terrorist organization.

[JURIST] Former White House advisor Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers [BBC profiles] will provide testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee [official website] concerning the firing of US Attorneys [JURIST news archive], allegedly for political reasons, the committee announced [press release] Wednesday after reaching an agreement with Bush administration officials. The agreement between the previous administration and chairman of the committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) [official website], follows a decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by US District Judge John Bates which rejected the administration's position that senior White House officials are protected from congressional subpoena by executive privilege. The committee also said that it has reserved the right to depose former White House lawyer William Kelley, who was involved in firings. Many members of Congress applauded the agreement, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) [official website] who said [press release], "the agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with."

In July, Rove refused to testify [JURIST report] before the House Judiciary Committee in defiance of a subpoena during the committee's investigation into politicization of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website]. In March 2008, the House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit to enforce subpoenas seeking information from Miers and former White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton regarding the firings. In 2007, Rove refused to testify [JURIST report] before a scheduled hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] in regards to the 2006-2007 attorney firings. The Bush administration had asserted executive privilege in allowing Miers, Bolton, and Rove to withhold testimony.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled [materials; press release, PDF] Thursday that UK regulations permitting mandatory retirement policies for workers who reach the age of 65 do not violate an EU anti-discrimination law. The case was originally brought by the group Age Concern England [advocacy website], which argued that the UK regulations violate a European Commission [official website] directive [EC 2000/78, PDF] that prohibits discrimination based on age in regards to employment and occupation. In its decision, the ECJ emphasized that the UK regulations are only legal if they meet legitimate social policy objectives:

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure which, like Regulation 3 of the Regulations at issue in the main proceedings, does not contain a precise list of the aims justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. However, Article 6(1) offers the option to derogate from that principle only in respect of measures justified by legitimate social policy objectives, such as those related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training.

[JURIST] The Zimbabwe High Court [official website] ruled on Wednesday that the Southern Africa Development Community Tribunal (SADC Tribunal) [official website] is not superior to the courts of the individual SADC member countries, in a decision invalidating a SADC Tribunal ruling [JURIST report] in favor of white Zimbabwe farmers whose lands were expropriated by a government land reform program. The case was brought to the High Court by white farmer Richard Etheredge, seeking to enforce the SADC ruling to evict the land reform beneficiary who received his farm, President of the Senate Edna Madzongwe. The judge reasoned [Herald report] that although Zimbabwe signed the SADC Treaty [text, doc] that established the court, the treaty does not expressly state that the tribunal is to be considered the superior court for all member states. White Zimbabwe farmers continue to endure pressure to leave their lands, according to reports [Sokwanele report, VOA report].

In December 2008, four white Zimbabwe farmers were charged with trespassing [JURIST report] on state property for failing to vacate lands that the government seized for the land reform program, in open defiance of the November 2008 SADC Tribunal ruling. Among them, Colin Cloete has filed suit to cause the government and attorney general to register the SADC ruling in the High Court Registry, a step necessary to enable its enforcement in the country. Government officials have expressed that the land reform program is necessary [JURIST report] to correct past racial disparities that favored the white farmers, and the land reform program will continue.

[JURIST] The US is resuming active participation as an observer in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website, JURIST news archive], according to interim Charge d'Affaires to the US Mission in Geneva Mark Sorella [official profile] in his address [statement text] to the council Wednesday. Sorella said that the US is committed "to work alongside all those working in good faith to promote and protect the human rights of every person around the world." Sorella also emphasized that:

the United States remains concerned about the politicization of human rights, and about this Council’s repeated singling out of one country. We are concerned about this Council’s failure thus far to address some of the most egregious human rights violations in the world today, and about isolated but alarming attempts by some to use Council resolutions to undermine universal human rights, such as freedom of expression. We call on all in this chamber to recommit to advancing human rights for all – and to end the politicization of this effort.