[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] voted 307-114 [roll call vote] Thursday to approve legislation that would allow Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees to be transferred to US soil for prosecution. The measure was part of a $42.7 billion spending bill [HR 2892 materials] for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website]. The legislation would forbid the release of Guantanamo detainees onto US soil and allows their transfer only for purposes of prosecution in federal courts and only after a thorough security assessment. The legislation also requires that Congress be provided with details before a detainee is transferred overseas. Republican lawmakers strongly opposed the measure, and attempted to send the bill back to committee, but that attempt was voted down 193-224 [roll call vote]. The bill will now go before the US Senate.

Members of the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Committee [list, PDF] reached an agreement [JURIST report] last week to allow Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the US for trial. The agreement came shortly after US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] told reporters that the Obama administration may miss its January deadline for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, echoing prior statements [JURIST reports] by top administration officials. Earlier this month, the House passed a non-binding motion [JURIST report] to instruct the conferees to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the US for prosecution or incarceration. The motion instructed House committee members to insist on such prohibitions during negotiations.

[JURIST] Two of the victims of Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff [JURIST news archive] sued the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] in federal court on Wednesday, seeking $2.4 million in damages. The complaint [text, PDF], filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website], alleges that the SEC owed a duty of care to investors and that employees of the agency were negligent in their investigation of the scheme, which is believed to have defrauded investors of over $65 billion. The complaint summarized the issue as follows:

[D]espite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff's trading and never took the necessary, but basic steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had these efforts been made with the appropriate follow-up at any time beginning in June of 1992 until December 2008, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme well before Madoff confessed.

[JURIST] A court in China sentenced six individuals to death on Thursday for their part in the July riots in Urumqi [JURIST news archive], capital of China's Xinjiang province. The convictions stemmed from assaults that resulted in the deaths of at least four people and damage to property estimated at over 1.6 million yuan. In addition to the six individuals sentenced to death, three were also sentenced to life in prison [Xinhua report], and the court stripped them of their political rights. With these convictions, 12 people have now been sentenced to death, and nearly 100 still await trial.

Earlier this week, six other individuals were sentenced to death [JURIST report], and one more was sentenced to life in prison, for their roles in the riots between Han Chinese and Uighur residents that claimed the lives of approximately 200 people. Residents of the region claim that the majority of the deaths were at the hands of Chinese authorities, but Chinese state media [Xinhua report] has reported that most of the deaths were due to protesters. For their part, the Chinese government has admitted that police were responsible for 12 of the deaths [JURIST report]. The Muslim Uighur population is opposed [BBC backgrounder] to China's restrictive bans on religious practice and says that the recent influx of Han Chinese has disenfranchised non-Chinese-speaking Uighurs.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] on Thursday reiterated her support [statement text] for the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict [official website; JURIST news archive]. In a statement to the 12th Special Session [materials] of the UN Human Rights Council [official website] on human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Pillay said that she agrees with the report's findings [JURIST], describing it as a "call for urgent action to counter impunity":

I encourage the Council and the broader international community to give full consideration to the Fact Finding Mission's report. I also wish to underscore the necessity for all parties to carry out impartial, independent, prompt, and effective investigations into reported violations of human rights and humanitarian law in compliance with international standards.

[JURIST] The trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] announced [order, PDF] on Wednesday that the trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] will begin on October 26. Karadzic will stand trial on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity after the ICTY Appeals Chamber rejected [JURIST report] his plea for immunity, allegedly promised by former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke in exchange for Karadzic's resignation. Echoing a similar dismissal [JURIST report] in April, the Appeals Chamber held that even if Karadzic could prove the existence of the agreement, which Holbrooke denies, it would not limit the ICTY's authority. Karadzic's trial was originally set to begin October 19, but was delayed after his appeal was rejected.

In June, the ICTY said that Karadzic's trial would start in late August [JURIST report], estimating that it will conclude in early 2012. His trial is planned to be the tribunal's last. Karadzic has twice refused to enter pleas [JURIST report] to 11 charges against him including genocide, murder, persecution, deportation, and "other inhumane acts," for war crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, including the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Karadzic was originally indicted [indictment text] by the ICTY in 1995 but had been in hiding under an assumed identity until his arrest last year [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Finland's Ministry of Transport and Communications [official website, in Finnish] announced Wednesday that broadband Internet access would become a legal right [press release, in Finnish] for all citizens. Becoming the first country to institute such a policy, the agency declared that Internet providers must afford everyone a connection that is at least one megabyte per second. Communications Minister Suvi Linden said that the required minimum would improve the quality and availability of connections in sparsely populated areas and contribute to rural vitality. Additionally, the agency hopes that the requirement will improve business by enabling electronic transactions. As of last year, out of a population of more than 5.2 million, there were approximately 4.35 million Internet users [statistics text] and 1.6 million broadband subscribers in Finland. The policy will take effect in July 2010.

While Finland is the first country to require broadband connections for its citizens, the right to Internet access recently became an issue in France with respect to Internet piracy legislation [JURIST news archive]. In September, the French Parliament gave final approval [JURIST report] to the latest version [text, in French] of the piracy bill, which aims to take away Internet access for third-time offenders. The French bill was originally struck down [judgment, in French; JURIST report] by the Constitutional Council [official website, in French] in June on the grounds that Internet access was a right that could not be taken away at the discretion of an administrative authority. The new version of the bill leaves suspension of access up to a judicial determination. The opposition Socialist party, who brought the initial suit, will continue to challenge [Reuters report] the legislation.

[JURIST] A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss a case challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a trial is needed [LA Times report] to determine issues regarding the level of constitutional protection afforded to same-sex couples and the state's motivations behind the ban. Walker rejected the argument that only a rational basis was needed for the amendment, pointing out that the US Supreme Court [official website] does not have a clear level of scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Walker also dismissed arguments of tradition and procreation. The trial is set for January.

The lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report], filed in May, challenges Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], which amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, on due process and equal protection grounds. The suit was filed by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies [professional profiles], of Bush v. Gore [opinion] fame, shortly after the California Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that challenges under state law lacked merit. In August, Walker ruled that several advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and Campaign for California Families [advocacy websites], could not intervene in the suit. Proposition 8, approved by voters [JURIST report] in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision last year striking down [JURIST report] a statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution.

[JURIST] Chilean Subsecretary of the Interior Patricio Rosende announced [press release, in Spanish] Tuesday that Chile will use a 1984 antiterrorism law [text, in Spanish] to prosecute indigenous Mapuches for attacks allegedly committed in the southern region of Araucania. The Chilean government has declared [La Nacion report, in Spanish] that it will apply the measure to criminals regardless of their ethnicity, and that only a minority of Mapuches are responsible for the recent attacks in an attempt to disturb negotiations over Mapuche demands. The government has been widely criticized by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Council [reports], which maintain that the antiterrorism law unfairly singles out Mapuches, who are Chile's largest minority, accounting for an estimated 4 to 6 percent of the country's population. The law dates from the Pinochet regime and abrogates due process rights for the accused, including a longer wait before arraignment and access to a lawyer once charged. The law also allows the imposition of sanctions up to three times what is established by the Chilean Criminal Code, and considers that acts perpetrated with the general intent of causing fear in the general population or imposing demands upon authorities have a terrorist intent.

Last month, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet [official website, in Spanish] proposed [AP report] the creation of an Indian Affairs Ministry. The proposal has been rejected by the Mapuche indigenous group, which continues to advocate for autonomy. Chile has ruled out such an option but has undertaken land redistribution [Santiago Times report] in Araucania to Mapuche members in response to their demands. Recently, Chile has also attempted to accommodate the demands [La Nacion report, in Spanish] of the Rapa Nui residents of Easter Island, another indigenous group, by undertaking a consultation process [JURIST report] on the subject of immigration and tourism to the island. The consultation comes as the Chilean Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] ruled [press release, in Spanish] last week that a measure requiring all visitors to Easter Island to fill out Special Visitor's Cards with information about the length of and reason for their trip is unconstitutional.