[JURIST] The Uruguayan House of Representatives [official website, in Spanish] on Thursday approved [press release, in Spanish] a bill that would allow same-sex couples to adopt. The House voted 40-13 in favor of the bill [El Pais report, in Spanish], which has been opposed by both the Roman Catholic Church and opposition political leaders with only a single vote on the bill from the opposition parties. The bill is supported by left-wing President Tabare Vazquez [BBC profile] and is expected to be approved by the Senate in the coming weeks. The Senate voted to approve an initial bill on July 15 and will vote again on the final version before the end of the legislative session on September 15. If the bill becomes law, Uruguay will be the first Latin American country to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The bill includes other changes to the Childhood and Adolescence Code [text, PDF, in Spanish], which governs adoptions, including shortening the adoption process and preserving the right of minors to know their biological parents and even maintain a relationship with them. Under the proposed law, married couples or legally-recognized civil unions could adopt a child after four years of living together. The Uruguayan Children's and Adolescent's Institute of Uruguay (INAU) [official website, in Spanish], the national agency that manages matters pertaining to minors, would continue to have discretion over the adoption process.

The Uruguayan common-law relationship law [text, PDF, in Spanish] allows couples to apply to be legally recognized as a civil union after five years of living together regardless of the gender of the parties. It was enacted amid much controversy in December 2007 and went into effect in January 2008. To date, only 180 couples have applied for common-law relationship recognition, and only 20 have been recognized. Among those, half of them have been same-sex couples. In the US, adoption by same-sex couples continues to be a controversial issue. In November, a Florida court ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that a ban on adopting children for same-sex couples was unconstitutional, allowing a couple to adopt two children. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF] the same Florida statute in 2005 as being rationally related to protecting the interests of children, and the US Supreme Court declined to review [WP report] that decision. In November, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure [JURIST reports] prohibiting gays, lesbians, and other unmarried cohabiting couples from becoming either foster or adoptive parents.

[JURIST] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] called Friday for the prosecution of opposition leaders who allegedly conspired to orchestrate widespread protests after the country's disputed June 12 presidential election [JURIST news archive]. Ahmadinejad spoke in front of thousands before Friday prayers in Tehran, calling for pro-reformists to be dealt with decisively [NYT report]. The president's comments, directed toward opposition candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and Mehdi Karroubi along with former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, apparently contradict a statement made earlier this week by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [BBC profile] in which he said he was not sure that opposition leaders had conspired with foreign leaders to cause the post-election unrest.

On Tuesday, Iran began the fourth mass trial [JURIST report] of election protesters and reformists. Earlier in August, three UN human rights experts called on Iran's Revolutionary Court to reject protesters' confessions obtained through torture [JURIST report]. Also this month, Iran's Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dorri Najafabadi acknowledged [JURIST report] that some protesters arrested after the election were tortured. Human rights groups have called arrests 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." Last month, Iran released [JURIST report] some 140 detainees arrested during the election aftermath. Also in July, a conservative newspaper called for Mousavi and Khatami to be tried for treason [JURIST report].

[JURIST] East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta [official profile; BBC profile] has rejected a call from Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] to establish an independent international criminal tribunal [JURIST report] to investigate and prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses stemming from the country's 1999 referendum for independence [BBC backgrounder] from Indonesia, ABC News reported [text] Friday. AI released a report [text, PDF] Thursday claiming that officials responsible for human rights abuses between 1975 and 1999 have yet to be prosecuted before an impartial tribunal. AI urged the UN Security Council [official website] to end impunity by establishing an international criminal tribunal and urged the Indonesian and East Timorese governments to commit to achieving justice for victims. Ramos-Horta rejected the report, saying that Indonesia should be allowed to initiate prosecutions on its own timeline.

Both Indonesian and East Timorese leaders have previously rejected calls for international prosecution, arguing that it could hinder the reconciliation process between the two nations. In July 2008, Indonesia formally accepted [JURIST report] a joint Indonesian-East-Timorese Commission of Truth and Friendship (CTF) [official website] finding that Indonesia was responsible for human rights violations following a the 1999 independence referendum. This was the first time that Indonesia had accepted any responsibility for the attacks in East Timor, which it previously blamed on local militias. In 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized the CTF for violating international humanitarian standards [JURIST report] because it allowed amnesty for some perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The Indonesian foreign minister responded [JURIST report] that the government of East Timor had voluntarily agreed to the CTF to resolve past disputes without injuring long-term relations with Indonesia. The CTF, established [terms of reference] in 2005 by the East Timorese and Indonesian governments, does not have independent authority to prosecute suspects.

[JURIST] US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] Secretary Janet Napolitano [official profile] announced [press release] Thursday new restrictions on controversial searches of laptop computers at the US border. DHS issued directives to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [official website] and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [directives, PDF] that "enhance and clarify oversight for searches of computers and other electronic media." DHS also released a privacy impact assessment [text, PDF] inform the public about the new directives. Napolitano said:

Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States. The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.

[JURIST] The registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] on Thursday rejected a petition seeking treason charges against former president Pervez Musharraf [official profile; JURIST news archive], finding that the applicant lacked standing and that the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum for such a petition. The petition [Dawn report] was filed by Senator Syed Zafar Ali Shah of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) [party website], which is led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif [JURIST news archive]. However, on the same day that Shah filed the petition, the PML-N said that the party's consolidated view was that any petition should be brought in parliament [Daily Times report] and not in the high court. Last week, PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called for treason charges during a parliamentary session, but Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani [BBC profile] said that the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) [party website] does not support treason charges [JURIST report] against Musharraf, making the requisite consensus resolution extremely unlikely.

Earlier this month, Pakistan's Awami National Party (ANP) [party website] said that it would support treason charges against Musharraf, one day after Pakistani police filed charges [JURIST reports] against Musharraf alleging that he illegally detained members of the judiciary after declaring emergency rule [proclamation, PDF] in November 2007. Last month, the Supreme Court declared [judgment, PDF; JURIST report] that Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule violated the Constitution of Pakistan [text]. Musharraf resigned from office [JURIST report] last August 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, Sharif 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] A judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Wednesday ordered [opinion, PDF] the government to grant security clearance to lawyers on both sides of the civil suit brought by former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) [official website] agent Richard Horn. In ruling on the government's attempt to exert privilege, Judge Royce Lamberth questioned the logic of denying a client's attorney access to the same information the client possesses. Lamberth also chastised the government for its attempts to do so, writing, "[t]he deference generally granted the Executive Branch in matters of classification and national security must yield when the Executive attempts to exert control over the courtroom." The government has 10 days to comply with Lamberth's order, though the Justice Department is reviewing the order [McClatchy report] and has not commented.

Horn, a former agent in Burma, is suing [summons and complaint] Franklin Huddle, the Chief of the Mission of the American Embassy in Burma, and Arthur Brown, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] agent stationed there, for violation of his civil rights and anti-wiretapping laws [text] during 1992 and 1993. Huddle and Brown are alleged to have intercepted communications intended for Horn and to have conspired to have him removed from his position. Wednesday's ruling is the second action in the 15-year old case in the past month. In late July, Lamberth ordered that documents relating to the case be unsealed [JURIST report], and charged that the CIA committed fraud in keeping the documents secret.

[JURIST] The popular social networking site Facebook [website] announced [press release] Thursday that it would give users more control over the private information they share through their profiles. The changes were announced after discussions with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [official website], who in July released a report [text, PDF] that was critical of Facebook's compliance with Canadian privacy laws. The Privacy Commissioner's Office applauded the changes [press release], with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart [official profile] saying that Facebook users, "will have a far clearer picture of how their personal information is being shared." Changes to the site will center on the accessibility of personal information by third party developers, providing users with the option of simply deactivating or completely deleting their accounts and stored information, and a commitment by Facebook to provide clearer details on what happens to a user's profile once they are deceased. Facebook has indicated it believes it will take one year to implement the proposed changes.

The news that Facebook would increase users' privacy controls comes as earlier this month, five Facebook users filed suit [JURIST report] in a US federal court alleging that the site violates California privacy laws. In late July, Facebook announced it had corrected a loophole [CNET report] whereby users could see strangers' posted photos without those individuals' knowledge. In February, Facebook, facing a federal complaint [PC World report], reversed a change to its Terms of Use policy that gave Faceboook ownership of all information posted on a user's profile, even if the page were deleted.