[JURIST] Iran officials said Wednesday that they plan to begin trials Sunday for 20 of those detained during protests of the controversial reelection [JURIST news archive] of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. The protesters have been charged with crimes [PressTV report] ranging from vandalism and organizing riots to sending pictures of the protests to "enemy media." Iranian officials announced earlier this week [JURIST report] that it planned to either press charges against or release most of those held after the riots. It has already released 140 of those detained and closed one prison holding protesters, after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] and other groups alleged that some protesters were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with torture in an effort to force false confessions [report text; JURIST report].

Earlier this month, opposition leaders called for the release [JURIST report] of those detained for their alleged involvement in the protests. Also this month, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) [advocacy website] reported that the number of deaths that occurred at the protests exceeded government reports [press release; JURIST report]. Human rights groups have viewed the arrests as political repression [JURIST report], saying that Iranian forces are using the protests to "engage in what appears to be a major purge of reform-oriented individuals." Despite the controversy, the country's Guardian Council of the Constitution [official website, in Persian] recently certified the contested results [JURIST report], officially sanctioning the re-election of Ahmadinejad.

[JURIST] Anti-death-penalty group Hands Off Cain [advocacy website] said Wednesday that the number of countries with capital punishment, as well as the total number of executions was down in 2008 [report] from the previous year. According to the group, at least 5,727 executions were carried out in the 46 countries that retain the death penalty. It cited the execution of minors, public executions, and executions of those convicted of non-violent crimes as the most egregious cases. It also said that its estimates were likely low, as many executions are kept secret. It said that China continued to account for more executions than any other country. In 2008, the country executed at least 5,000 people, or more than 87 percent of the world's total. China said Wednesday that it plans to reduce [China Daily report] the number of executions it conducts. Hands Off Cain praised jurisdictions that had stopped using the penalty, particularly the state of New Mexico, which banned its use [press release; JURIST report] earlier this year.

In its 2007 report, Hands Off Cain reported that there were 5,851 executions and 51 countries with the death penalty. That represented an increase in executions, but a decrease in the number of countries with executions from the previous year [JURIST report]. Countries around the world also continue to debate details of the penalty, with the US ending a de facto national moratorium [JURIST report] on the death penalty last year when the US Supreme Court ruled in Baze v. Rees [JURIST report] that the three-drug lethal injection sequence [DPIC backgrounder] used in most states does not violate the Constitution. Recently, both China and India have contemplated switching to lethal injections, and Iran has stayed the executions [JURIST reports] of some convicted as minors.

[JURIST] Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern [official profile] announced Wednesday that Ireland will accept two detainees [press release] being released from the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. The detainees will not be admitted as refugees, but rather with permanent residency rights [Guardian report], allowing them to work and move freely. Ahern said:

During my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was the first EU Minister to call for the closure of the detention facility. The Government has consistently called for its closure since then. In making this decision I am conscious of the intention of the United States to close the centre at Guantanamo Bay, in part by transferring detainees, no longer regarded as posing a threat to security but who cannot return to their own countries, to other countries willing to accept them.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that a lawsuit against Iran over the 1984 assassination of former chief of the Iranian armed forces Gholam Oveissi in France by Hezbollah [JURIST news archive] may proceed. The suit was brought by Oveissi's grandson, who alleged that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) funded and directed Hezbollah. The US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] found [opinion, PDF] that Iran and MOIS were liable for Oveissi's murder, but rejected the plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death, applying California law, which barred the claim, because the plaintiff was born in California citizen. The appeals court reversed the lower court decision, finding that French law should apply because the assassination took place in France:

We have no doubt that the United States has a strong interest in applying its domestic law to terrorist attacks on its nationals, especially when ... the attacks are "by reason of their nationality." But Gholam Oveissi was not an American national; nor has the plaintiff suggested that the defendants knew Oveissi had an American grandchild or that the United States or its nationals were in any other way the object of the attack. To the contrary, plaintiff's counsel conceded at oral argument that there is no evidence that Oveissi's assassination was intended to affect the United States. Moreover, the plaintiff's international terrorism expert testified that assassinations like this one "were intended to silence the Iranian regime's critics and to deter French intervention in Lebanon." Hence, if any country was the object of the attack, it was France. Accordingly, all of the relevant choice-of-law factors point to the application of French law to the plaintiff's claims.

[JURIST] Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohammed Jawad [ACLU materials; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday called on the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] to sign off on the release [filing, PDF] of their client, claiming Afghanistan is ready to repatriate him. The lawyers say that prosecutors in the case have admitted that they do not have military justification [filing, PDF] to hold Jawad, but have cited the emergence of new evidence and logistical delays as reasons that the court should continue to hold him. According to the filing, government lawyers have said that the court should continue to hold Jawad as he may face a criminal investigation [JURIST report], and that there is a mandatory 15-day waiting period before government funds could be expended for his release. Dismissing both arguments, lawyers for Jawad said that the government has had plenty of time to compile evidence against him, and that Afghan officials have committed to covering all costs for his repatriation to the country:

Respondents recommend that the Court take two "considerations" into account when fashioning its relief: first, that the Attorney General has initiated a criminal investigation against Mr. Jawad based on evidence that was "not previously available for inclusion in the record," and second, that logistical considerations and financial constraints will require a period of "several weeks" to resolve. These "considerations" are nonsensical and the Court should disregard them. The insinuation that the evidence furnishing the basis for criminal prosecution is some fresh revelation that was discovered too recently to be included in the record is preposterous. As the dates of the reports in Respondents' Attachment A indicate, the Government has had possession of this evidence for several months...

[R]espondents can easily arrange for Mr. Jawad's repatriation in a manner that does not cost the U.S. Government a dime. All that is required of the United States is to allow a delegation from Afghanistan or from a neutral intermediary such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to fly to Guantanamo and pick him up, something that can easily be arranged in 24 hours or less. [citations omitted]

[JURIST] Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website] announced Tuesday that it has reached a settlement [press release] with Parmalat SpA [corporate website; JURIST news archive] in litigation stemming from the 2003 collapse of the Italian dairy giant. Under the terms of the settlement, BOA will pay Pamalat USD $100 million, which includes both cash and non-cash components. The settlement resolves a $10 million lawsuit filed by Parmalat against BOA in 2004 and a counterclaim [JURIST reports] filed by BOA, alleging the company engaged in fraud and is maliciously suing the bank to shift blame. The two companies filed a joint motion to stay proceedings [text, PDF], and further details of the settlement will become available once it has been filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website].

In December, an Italian court in Milan sentenced [JURIST report] Parmalat founder Calisto Tanzi [NNDB profile] to 10 years in prison for his role in the company's collapse of the Italian dairy giant. Tanzi was the first executive to be sentenced in connection with the €14 billion fraud scheme in 2003 that bankrupted the company. He was convicted of fraudulent bankruptcy and criminal association for allegedly concealing the company's debt. Seven other defendants were acquitted [Corriere Della Sera report, in Italian], including three former BOA employees and the former head of Parmalat Venezuela. An eighth corporate defendant, former Parmalat auditor Italaudit, was fined €240,000 and had €455,000 confiscated. Tanzi was indicted [JURIST report] along with approximately 20 other executives in July 2007. Parmalat filed for insolvency in December 2003 after discovering accounting discrepancies totaling nearly $5 billion in debt.

[JURIST] The US House Committee on Financial Services [official website] on Tuesday approved [press release] the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act [HR 3269 text, PDF], which would restrict the way in which executives for publicly-traded companies can be compensated. Committee members say the bill would discourage executive compensation packages that emphasize short-term gains over long-term stability, which they say helped to cause the country's recent financial collapse. The bill includes a so-called "say-on-pay" provision that would allow shareholders an advisory vote on compensation. It would also require the disclosure of packages that include performance-based incentives and allow regulators to prohibit certain packages that are considered particularly "high risk." It does not provide a monetary cap on compensation. The entire House of Representatives [official website] is expected to discuss the bill on Friday.

The US has already imposed more stringent rules on compensation for executives of companies that received financial assistance from the government following the collapse. In April, the House approved [JURIST report] a bill [HR 1664 materials] that allows the Treasury Department [official website] to ban certain types of compensation at companies which receive federal bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) [JURIST report]. Earlier that month, it passed [JURIST report] legislation [HR 1586 text, PDF] that would tax bonuses given to employees of companies that received money from government stimulus programs at 90 percent. In February, President Barack Obama [official profile] placed a $500,000 cap on executive compensation [WH press release; JURIST report] for companies receiving "exceptional assistance" from the federal government.

[JURIST] The substantive portion of the civil trial of Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum [defense website], accused of illegally downloading seven songs [complaint, PDF], began in Boston on Tuesday. On Monday, jury selection [Boston Globe report] was completed, and, in a significant setback for the defense team, led by Harvard professor Charles Nesson [academic profile], Judge Nancy Gertner of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website], rejected [NECN report] Tenenbaum's proposed fair use [backgrounder] defense. The ruling was crucial, as Tenenbaum has admitted to downloading the songs, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) [organization website] has possession of his computer hard drive. If found liable, Tenenbaum could face a fine of $80,000 per song, similar to that levied against Jammie Thomas-Rasset in a similar file-sharing case last month [JURIST report].

The suit against Tenenbaum, brought by four record companies including Sony BMG and Warner Brothers [corporate websites], may be the last to be brought to trial, as the RIAA in December decided to discontinue pursuing [JURIST report] those accused of illegal file-sharing in court. The RIAA has indicated that it will work with internet service providers to identify and then deny service to those who infringe copyrights. The RIAA has also sent letters [press release] to thousands of individuals with an offer to settle infringement claims out of court.