[JURIST] The New York Senate [official website] rejected legislation [text; materials] Wednesday that would have legalized same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. The sponsors of the bill, supported by New York Governor David Paterson [official profile], were unable to marshal the votes required to pass the bill out of the state senate, where the Democratic Party holds a single seat majority. Despite earlier suggestions of the possibility, no Republicans voted in favor of the legislation, resulting in a final vote of 38-24 [NYT report]. Gay rights groups such as the Human Rights Campaign [advocacy website] expressed disappointment [press release] after the vote, while the National Organization for Marriage [advocacy website] welcomed the vote [press release] as a "huge win." Also on Wednesday, a Marist college poll was released [poll results] finding that same-sex marriage is supported by 51 percent of New York's registered voters, and opposed by 42 percent.

Paterson introduced the bill to the state legislature last April, and it passed [JURIST report] in the General Assembly [official website] by a margin of 89-52. The bill was again passed by the lower body in anticipation of the senate vote, as required by state law. Wednesday's vote comes as a blow to advocates for same-sex marriage, who faced another defeat last month when Maine voters vetoed [JURIST report] a same-sex marriage bill passed by that state's legislature. The Maine vote came a year after California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], an amendment to the state constitution overturning the state's high court ruling [JURIST report] in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in four states in the US, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, and will be legal in New Hampshire [JURIST reports] starting January 1. New York is currently one of the few US jurisdictions to recognize [JURIST report] same-sex marriages performed in other states.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] on Wednesday ordered [text, PDF; press release] former Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) vice-president Jean-Pierre Bemba [ICC materials, JURIST news archive] to remain in custody until his trial next spring. The ruling reverses a decision [JURIST report] issued in August ordering Bemba's conditional release. The order for release was opposed by ICC prosecutors who appealed [JURIST report] the original decision. Bemba remained in custody during the appeals process because the condition of release requiring a country to host him was not met. The ICC appeals judges determined that the original decision to release Bemba was flawed, stating:

the Pre-Trial Chamber misappreciated and disregarded relevant facts in reaching its conclusion that the entirety of factors before it reflected a "substantial change of circumstances" since the issuance of the Decision of 14 April 2009. The Pre-Trial Chamber acknowledged that the grave charges that Mr. Bemba now faces as a result of the Decision of 15 June 2009 makes the risk of him absconding more likely than prior to confirmation. In the view of the Appeals Chamber it was incumbent upon the Pre-Trial Chamber to analyse all the factors based on this heightened risk, in particular, Mr. Bemba's international contacts and ties and his financial situation which the Pre-Trial Chamber did not do.

[JURIST] Iranian economist and journalist Saeed Laylaz was sentenced to a nine-year jail term on Wednesday for possessing classified information and participating in protests following the contested presidential election in June [JURIST news archive]. Laylaz has been a longstanding critic of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], and was an editor for the reform newspaper Sarmayeh [media website, in Persian], which was shut down by the government last month. Shapour Kazemi, the brother-in-law of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi [IranTracker profile], was also sentenced to one year in jail after being charged with participating in the demonstrations. Laylaz and Kazemi have 20 days to appeal their sentences.

Thousands were arrested during the protests following the contested June election, and about 140 have been tried in court to date. Of those tried, 81 have been convicted and sentenced, including former vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi who was sentenced last month [JURIST report]. The government's response to the protests has been criticized, and human rights groups have called for [JURIST report] the UN General Assembly [official website] to appoint a special envoy to investigate allegations of human rights abuses in Iran since the election. Alleged human rights abuses of detainees include sexual assault, beatings, and forced confessions [JURIST reports]. The government has detained dozens of journalists as well as protesters, and has shut down numerous media outlets. Laylaz was arrested on June 17, according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website], which monitors the status of detained journalists in Iran [materials].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on the constitutional scope of states' authority to modify property boundaries without a judicial hearing. At issue is whether Florida's restoration of storm-eroded beaches by modifying private property boundaries under the Beach and Shore Preservation Act [text] violates due process. The appeal follows a Supreme Court of Florida [official website] ruling [opinion, PDF] that the legislation in question does not unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of their rights to use and enjoy the shore without just compensation, confining its judgment to the context of eroded beaches only. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

The Florida Supreme Court suddenly and dramatically redefined property rights, converting oceanfront property into oceanview property to avoid the finding of a taking. It did so in the context of a beach restoration project which could have been accomplished without taking any private property at all. Given this Court's jurisprudence that a State's legislative and executive branches cannot violate the Fifth Amendment, we see no reason why the judicial branch should be treated any differently.

[JURIST] The Malaysian high court ruled [Bernama report] Tuesday that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim [BBC profile, JURIST news archive] will stand trial on charges on sodomy early next year. Counsel for Anwar had argued for the case to be thrown out [Star report] since medical reports showed no conclusive proof of penetration, but Justice Mohamad Zabidin concluded that medical reports could not be used as a basis to strike out the charge. Anwar is accused of sodomizing his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari, in 2008. He has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] and contends that the charge is part of a government conspiracy to undermine his political agenda. The trial date has been set for January 25, 2010, and, if convicted, Anwar faces up to 20 years in prison.

The current sodomy charge is the second against Anwar in the past 11 years. Anwar was Malaysia's deputy prime minister until he was fired in 1998 following sodomy charges of which he was initially convicted but later acquitted. He only recently reentered Malaysian politics following the expiration of a ten-year ban [JURIST report] against him for unrelated corruption charges.

[JURIST] The Council of the District of Columbia [official website] voted Tuesday in favor of a law that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in Washington, DC. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 [text, PDF] passed with a vote of 11-2, despite opposition from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington [organization website], which has pledged to end social services [JURIST report] if the bill becomes law. To become law, first the bill must pass another vote by the Council at least two weeks later, which is tentatively scheduled for December 15 [Washington Post report]. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty [official profile] has promised to sign the bill [AP report], after which the US Congress would have 30 days to veto it under the Home Rule Act [text, PDF]. If Congress fails to act, the bill will then become law at the expiration of that time. Council members Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander [official profiles] cast the dissenting votes. Before casting his vote, Barry stated: "I stand here today to express, in no uncertain terms, my strong commitment to the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one."

Last month, the District of Columbia Board of Election and Ethics [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the Jury and Marriage Act (JAMA) [text, PDF], which allows DC to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other jurisdictions, could not be challenged by a ballot initiative because overturning the law would violate the DC Human Rights Act [text]. In July, JAMA took effect [JURIST report] after congressional inaction. If the marriage bill becomes law, DC will become the sixth US jurisdiction to recognize marriage between same-sex couples, after voters in Maine rejected a similar bill [JURIST report] that had passed the state legislature. Similar legislative initiatives were successful in New Hampshire and Vermont [JURIST reports]. Legislation to the same end was passed [JURIST report] by the New York State Assembly in May, but has since stalled in the state senate. In April, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on same-sex marriage, following the supreme courts of Connecticut, California, and Massachusetts [JURIST reports]. Last November, California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], amending the California constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and effectively overriding the ruling of the high court.

[JURIST] The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] named [press release] a new head co-prosecutor Wednesday after the September resignation [JURIST report] of Canadian Robert Petit. UK lawyer Andrew Cayley, who will serve alongside a Cambodian prosecutor, has previously been in private practice defending alleged war criminal Charles Taylor [JURIST news archive] in The Hague. He also served as Senior Prosecuting Counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] from 2001-2005 where he was responsible for the continuing investigation against Ratko Mladic [JURIST news archive]. Cayley takes over for William Smith of Australia, who had been serving as acting co-prosecutor [JURIST report]. American Nicholas Koumjian has been appointed as reserve co-prosecutor [AP report].

The ECCC, charged with trying those responsible for atrocities committed during the rule of the Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder], has been faced with numerous allegations of corruption. On Tuesday, the court rejected a motion for a probe into allegations of judicial bias [JURIST report]. In August Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] asked the ECCC to determine the scope of its prosecutions [JURIST report] "to thwart growing perceptions that court decisions are directed by the government." In February, HRW warned that ECCC trials were in danger of being tainted for their failure to follow fair trial standards, and in January a Cambodian court agreed to hear a corruption case [JURIST reports] involving two ECCC judges.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Ahmed Ghailani [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive] have filed a motion [text, PDF] to dismiss the charges against him, according to heavily redacted court documents made public Tuesday. Ghailani's lawyers argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated after he spent nearly five years in custody before being brought before a civilian court. The lawyers also argued that Ghailani was subjected to cruel interrogation methods at "black sites," or secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] and was denied access to a lawyer. According to the motion, national security concerns should never "trump a defendant's Constitutional right to a Speedy Trial." A spokesperson for the prosecution declined to comment [NYT report], and prosecutors will be filing a response to the motion.

Ghailani faces charges for his alleged involvement in the 1998 bombings of US embassies [PBS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] in Tanzania and Kenya and is the first Guantanamo detainee to be brought to the US for prosecution. Last month, a federal judge ruled [opinion, PDF] that Ghailani does not have a right to be represented by his military defense lawyers [JURIST report] in a civilian court. In July, Ghailani's military lawyers requested access to the CIA "black sites" at which their client was held prior to his transfer to Guantanamo Bay. Having been held at the Guantanamo facility since 2006, Ghailani was transferred [JURIST report] to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] in June to face 286 separate counts including involvement in the bombings and conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans worldwide. He pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] at his initial appearance.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] on Tuesday condemned [press release] Switzerland's ban on building minarets [JURIST report], a type of tower associated with Islamic mosques. The ban, which was approved Sunday with 57.5 percent of the vote and the majority of Swiss cantons, was put forth by conservative political groups and opposed by churches, the government, and business groups. Pillay said that the ban was religious discrimination:

Some of the politicians who proposed this motion argued that it wasn't targeting Islam or Muslims. Others claimed that banning minarets would improve integration. These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted. ...

Indeed, a ban on minarets amounts to an undue restriction of the freedom to manifest one's religion and constitutes a clear discrimination against members of the Muslim community in Switzerland.