[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] on Friday declared [judgment, PDF] that former president Pervez Musharraf [official profile; JURIST news archive] violated the Constitution of Pakistan [text] when he declared emergency rule [proclamation, PDF] in November 2007. The court found that Musharraf's removal [JURIST report] of many members of the country's judiciary, including current Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry [official profile; JURIST news archive], and subsequent appointment of Abdul Hameed Dogar [JURIST news archive] as chief justice was unconstitutional and, as a result, judges appointed in consultation with Dogar were removed from office. The decision leaves intact judgments rendered by judges whose position has been declared unconstitutional and reverts lower court judges appointed to the Supreme Court and regional High Courts to their prior posts. In an attempt to avoid future political interference with the judiciary, the Supreme Court amended the judicial Code of Conduct to declare that no "Judge shall, hereinafter, offer any support in whatever manner to any un-constitutional functionary who acquires power otherwise than through the modes envisaged by the Constitution." The judgment does not affect the 2008 general election that brought President Asif Ali Zardari [official website] to power on the grounds that the welfare of the country is served by governmental continuity.

Last August, Musharraf resigned from office [JURIST report] in order to avoid impeachment proceedings by the country's parliament. Earlier that month, the country's coalition government said that it would push to impeach Musharraf because he had given a "clear commitment" to step down from office after his party was defeated in parliamentary elections [JURIST reports]. In June 2008, former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif [JURIST news archive] called for Musharraf to be tried for treason [JURIST report], labeling him a traitor disloyal to Pakistan and saying he should be punished for the "damage" that he had done to the country in the years since he led a military coup [BBC backgrounder] and unseated Sharif in 1999.

[JURIST] The High Court in London ruled [judgment text] Friday that a man accused of hacking US government computers in 2001 and 2002 may be extradited to the US for prosecution. This is the latest in a series of failed appeals by systems analyst Gary McKinnon [BBC profile; advocacy website], who was arrested by British police in 2002 and indicted [text, PDF] by US authorities later that year on charges of hacking NASA, Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, and Navy computers in violation of US computer laws [18 USC 1030 text]. The British government granted the 2005 US extradition request, but McKinnon's lawyer appealed, alleging that US authorities had told McKinnon that if he did not plead guilty to the charges, he could be sentenced to life in prison since each of the seven counts against him is punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine [indictment press release]. McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome, lost an appeal [JURIST report] to the UK Law Lords last July. He filed a new appeal, asking the Secretary of State to consider new evidence as to his mental condition. The Secretary of State denied his appeal, and the court declined to overturn that decision.

In 2006, a UK court recommended [JURIST report] that the government extradite McKinnon to the US. His lawyers appealed, but, in 2007, High Court judges ruled [judgment text] that there were no grounds for appeal. McKinnon has not denied the charges against him but has said that he was motivated by a desire to uncover "hidden technology" capable of benefiting all of mankind and evidence of UFOs, which he claims is being suppressed by the US military.

[JURIST] A federal judge ruled Thursday night that Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum [defense website] is liable for illegally downloading music. Four record companies, including Sony BMG and Warner Brothers [corporate websites], brought suit against Tenenbaum in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website], accusing him of illegally downloading 30 songs [complaint, PDF] in violation of copyright laws. Tenenbaum admitted to downloading hundreds of songs, and Judge Nancy Gertner directed the jury to consider only the amount of damages [Boston Globe report]. The jury began deliberations Friday. Tenenbaum faces a fine [AP report] of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or as much as $150,000 if the infringement is found to have been willful.

In the only other file-sharing case to go to trial, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found liable and fined $192 million last month [JURIST report]. The suit against Tenenbaum may be the last to be brought to trial, as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) [organization website] 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.

11:30 PM ET - The jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000.

[JURIST] The Myanmar court hearing the trial of opposition pro-democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on Friday delayed the verdict until at least August 11. The court was scheduled to deliver the verdict Friday, after hearing closing arguments from the prosecution Monday and from the defense [JURIST reports] last week. Suu Kyi's lawyers said the court adjouned, saying it needed more time [AP report] to consider the issues. Suu Kyi faces charges of violating the terms of her house arrest for allowing an American to stay with her after he swam across a lake to visit.

Earlier this month, Suu Kyi's trial resumed after a delay [JURIST reports] with the testimony of Khin Moe Moe, a member of Suu Kyi's National League of Democracy (NLD) [party website] party, who claimed the charges were politically motivated. Last month, a Myanmar court sentenced [JURIST report] two members of the NLD to 18 months in prison after leading prayers for Suu Kyi's release. Her arrest was controversial and highly criticized [JURIST report] by the international community. She has spent 12 of the past 18 years in prison or under house arrest for alleged violations of an anti-subversion law [text, PDF]. News of Suu Kyi's trial has been met with criticism from numerous agencies and governments around the world. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] has said the charges [HRW report] against Suu Kyi are "trumped up."

[JURIST] Venezuelan Attorney General Luisa Ortega [official profile, in Spanish] on Thursday proposed legislation [press release, in Spanish] to limit the media's freedom of expression in certain circumstances, citing the importance of national security. Under the proposed law, journalists could face up to four years in prison for "threatening the social peace, security and independence of the nation, public order, stability of state institutions, mental health, and public morals and for generating a climate of impunity or insecurity. The law would also punish those who disseminate false information, resulting in public panic. Ortiz later stressed to the media that the measures are essential for balancing freedom of expression with safety and security concerns:



The Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) [advocacy website] called the proposed legislation [press release] a "serious setback to freedom of expression and democracy in Venezuela, and part of a pattern of repression by President Chavez to silence independent and critical voices." The National Assembly [official website, in Spanish], controlled by allies of President Hugo Chavez [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], began debating the measure Thursday and is expected to approve it within the next few months.

Venezuela has been criticized repeatedly for its limits on freedom of expression and religion. In May, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) [official website] added Venezuela to its "watch list" [JURIST report] of countries that limit religious freedom. In February the US State Department criticized Venezuela for press restrictions in its 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In September, Venezuelan officials ordered two senior Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] staff to leave the country [JURIST report] after after the group released a report [press release] concluding that democracy and human rights have suffered during the Chavez administration.

[JURIST] US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice [official profile] on Thursday signed [press release] the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [official website; JURIST news archive]. The move came after US President Barack Obama announced [JURIST report] last week during a celebration commemorating the 19th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 [DOJ materials] that the US would sign the convention. The announcement was met with widespread approval [HRW news release; IDRM press release] by international and human rights organizations, as the Bush administration declined to sign the convention [JURIST report] at the time it was adopted, citing what it characterized as sufficient protective laws already in effect in the country. At the signing ceremony at UN headquarters, Rice said:

This Treaty, as you all know, is the first new human rights convention of the 21st century adopted by the United Nations and further advances the human rights of the 650 million people with disabilities worldwide. It urges equal protection and equal benefits under the law for all citizens, it rejects discrimination in all its forms, and calls for the full participation and inclusion in society of all persons with disabilities. ...

We all still have a great deal more to do at home and abroad. As President Obama has noted, people with disabilities far too often lack the choice to live in communities of their own choosing; their unemployment rate is much higher than those without disabilities; they are much more likely to live in poverty; health care is out of reach for far too many; and too many children with disabilities are denied a world-class education around the world. Discrimination against people with disabilities is not simply unjust; it hinders economic development, limits democracy, and erodes societies.

[JURIST] Germany's Federal Constitutional Court [official website, in German] ruled [judgment, in German; press release, in German] Thursday that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) [official website, in German] may not withhold information from parliament without good cause. The case began in 2006 [DW report] when the BND refused to tell Germany's Green Party [party website, in German] whether it was spying on members of parliament. Thursday's ruling requires that the government present a detailed explanation [Tagesschau report, in German] of its reasoning when it refuses to divulge information to parliament. Some members of parliament said they expect currently classified information to become declassified as a result of the the ruling.

Intelligence services of a number of countries have come under government scrutiny in the past month. Earlier this month the Canadian Security Intelligence Service [official website] was criticized [JURIST report] by Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee [official website] for its role in interrogating a Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee. Also this month, the UK Metropolitan Police Service [official website] announced it was looking into [JURIST report] allegations that British intelligence officers mistreated former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed [JURIST news archive]. The United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committe [official website] announced earlier this month that it would open a formal investigation [JURIST report] into a plan to assassinate al Qaeda members that the Central Intelligence Committee (CIA) [official website] failed to disclose to Congress.

[JURIST] The UK Law Lords [official website], during their final session Thursday, ordered [judgment text] the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [official website] to clarify the UK's laws on assisted suicide. The case was brought by Debbie Purdy, a 46-year-old who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Purdy wants her husband to help her to travel to Switzerland to end her life when the disease becomes unbearable. Under the UK's Suicide Act 1961 [text], Purdy's husband could face up to 14 years in prison if he aids her in ending her life, even in Switzerland where physician-assisted suicide is legal. In demanding the DPP clarify the law, the Law Lords reasoned:

Ms Purdy's request for information is to be seen in the light of that background. As has been said, she does not seek an immunity. Instead she wants to be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to ask for her husband's assistance. She is not willing to expose him to the risk of being prosecuted if he assists her. But the Director has declined to say what factors he will take into consideration in deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute those who assist people to end their lives in countries where assisted suicide is lawful. This presents her with a dilemma. If the risk of prosecution is sufficiently low, she can wait until the very last moment before she makes the journey. If the risk is too high she will have to make the journey unaided to end her life before she would otherwise wish to do so. Moreover she is not alone in finding herself in this predicament. Statements have been produced showing that others in her situation have chosen to travel without close family members to avoid the risk of their being prosecuted. Others have given up the idea of an assisted suicide altogether and have been left to die what has been described as a distressing and undignified death. It is patently obvious that the issue is not going to go away.