[JURIST] A French judge ruled Tuesday that former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] must remain in custody until his trial on money laundering charges. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited [JURIST report] from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. Noriega appeared Tuesday before French prosecutors to hear the charges against him, which stem from allegedly laundering $3 million in drug profits by purchasing property in Paris. He then appeared before a judge to request that he be sent back to Panama immediately. His lawyers argued that he is immune from prosecution as a former head of state and that the statute of limitations has expired. The judge rejected those arguments [Le Monde report, in French], remanding Noriega into custody.

Noriega fought extradition [JURIST report] from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

[JURIST] A French judge ruled Tuesday that former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] must remain in custody until his trial on money laundering charges. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited [JURIST report] from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. Noriega appeared Tuesday before French prosecutors to hear the charges against him, which stem from allegedly laundering $3 million in drug profits by purchasing property in Paris. He then appeared before a judge to request that he be sent back to Panama immediately. His lawyers argued that he is immune from prosecution as a former head of state and that the statute of limitations has expired. The judge rejected those arguments [Le Monde report, in French], remanding Noriega into custody.

Noriega fought extradition [JURIST report] from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

In our view Petitioners lack standing to bring this case to this Court. By failing to challenge the lawfulness of the deregulation vacatur either in the Ninth Circuit or in this Court, Petitioners have an insurmountable redressability problem. They cannot get the practical relief they seek even in the event that this Court vacates or narrows the injunction.

In December, the ICC ordered [text, PDF] Bemba to remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. The ruling reversed 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. The ICC has ordered Bemba to stand trial [JURIST report] for war crimes allegedly committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) [BBC backgrounder] from October 2002 to May 2003. Bemba was arrested [JURIST report] in Belgium in May 2008 after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest for his actions in the CAR. He was indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and transferred [JURIST report] to the ICC in July 2008.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Tuesday in Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on what conditions must be met to obtain a nationwide injunction prohibiting the planting of genetically engineered crops. The case arose over an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready alfalfa," pending an environmental impact statement. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [EPA materials] plaintiffs are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction, affirming the nationwide injunction. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the district court, "short-circuited the requisite inquiry into the likelihood of reparable - irreparable harm, because they reasoned that the agency was going to get into this anyway in the course of preparing its environmental impact statement." Counsel for respondents argued:

In our view Petitioners lack standing to bring this case to this Court. By failing to challenge the lawfulness of the deregulation vacatur either in the Ninth Circuit or in this Court, Petitioners have an insurmountable redressability problem. They cannot get the practical relief they seek even in the event that this Court vacates or narrows the injunction.

[JURIST] Defense lawyers for Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) former vice president Jean-Pierre Bemba [case materials, JURIST news archive] argued before the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Tuesday that charges against their client should be dropped. His lawyers argued that he has been denied due process [Reuters report] and that the charges are illegal. Bemba was originally set to go on trial on war crimes charges on Tuesday, but the trial was postponed [JURIST report] until July 5 to allow the court more time to consider the defense's motion on the admissibility of the case, filed in February.

In December, the ICC ordered [text, PDF] Bemba to remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. The ruling reversed 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. The ICC has ordered Bemba to stand trial [JURIST report] for war crimes allegedly committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) [BBC backgrounder] from October 2002 to May 2003. Bemba was arrested [JURIST report] in Belgium in May 2008 after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest for his actions in the CAR. He was indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and transferred [JURIST report] to the ICC in July 2008.

The Oklahoma Senate voted to approve [JURIST report] five anti-abortion bills last week, sending three to Henry for his approval and returning two to the Oklahoma State House of Representatives [official website]. Pending House approval, two additional bills would require a woman to answer 38 questions [HB 3284 text, RTF], including why she is seeking an abortion, and prohibit state health plans from covering elective abortions [HB 3290 text, RTF]. The Oklahoma laws join another restrictive abortion law passed recently in Nebraska, which bans abortions after 20 weeks [JURIST report].

Two Latino advocacy groups have said they plan to challenge [JURIST report] the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law, alleging it permits racial profiling. Officials from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy website; press release] and the National Coalition of Latino Christian Clergy [advocacy website] contend the law will let police single out minorities for immigration inspections. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report], calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime [AP report] to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

[JURIST] The Oklahoma State Senate [official website] on Tuesday voted 36-12 to override Governor Brad Henry's veto of two anti-abortion bills that will now immediately become law. The first bill [HB 2526 text, RTF] would prevent "wrongful life" lawsuits in which parents seek damages for a child born with a birth defect because the mother was unable to obtain an abortion. The second bill [HB 2780 text, RTF] would require doctors to conduct a vaginal ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion while displaying and explaining the images. The 48-member senate just met the minimum of three-quarters majority required to override an executive veto. The senate's vote comes one day after the House of Representatives [official website] voted 84-12 to override the veto [press release].

The Oklahoma Senate voted to approve [JURIST report] five anti-abortion bills last week, sending three to Henry for his approval and returning two to the Oklahoma State House of Representatives [official website]. Pending House approval, two additional bills would require a woman to answer 38 questions [HB 3284 text, RTF], including why she is seeking an abortion, and prohibit state health plans from covering elective abortions [HB 3290 text, RTF]. The Oklahoma laws join another restrictive abortion law passed recently in Nebraska, which bans abortions after 20 weeks [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] on Monday strongly criticized [press release, in Spanish] Arizona's new immigration law, claiming that the measure opens the door to intolerance and hatred. The Arizona bill [SB 1070 materials], signed into law [JURIST report] last week by Governor Jan Brewer, makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant and requires police to question anyone whose immigration status appears suspect. Calling the law a violation of human rights [WP report], Calderon promised that it will be a pressing item on his agenda during his upcoming visit to Washington in May. Calderon has also called on Mexico's foreign ministry and consulates in the US to begin defending the rights of Mexicans and suggested that trade and political ties between Arizona and Mexico will be seriously affected.

Two Latino advocacy groups have said they plan to challenge [JURIST report] the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law, alleging it permits racial profiling. Officials from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy website; press release] and the National Coalition of Latino Christian Clergy [advocacy website] contend the law will let police single out minorities for immigration inspections. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report], calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime [AP report] to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

Construing this limitations statute for the first time, we hold that a cause of action accrues (1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover, or (2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, "the facts constituting the violation" - whichever comes first. We also hold that the "facts constituting the violation" include the fact of scienter, "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud,"

Under 28 USC § 1658(b) [text], a plaintiff has two years to file a claim alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [text, PDF]. The first fraud complaint against the company was filed in November of 2003. Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after a study showed that it could double the risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for more than 18 months.

[JURIST] Officials in Kyrgyzstan's interim government said Tuesday that ousted former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] has been charged with mass murder, for which he will be tried in absentia. The charges stem from an April 7 incident [JURIST report] in which police fired on a crowd of anti-government demonstrators, killing more than 85 people. The crowd eventually overwhelmed security forces, ultimately overtaking the Kyrgyz government and forcing Bakiyev into exile. Bakiyev maintains that police only shot at the protesters after the crowd began firing on Kyrgyz government headquarters. Interim leader Roza Otunbayeva [Telegraph profile] has pledged [JURIST report] to bring Bakiyev and other members of the former government to justice, but the government has so far succeeded in securing only the arrest of former defense minister Baktybek Kaliyev [AFP report] and the extradition Bakiyev's interior minister from Russia. Officials in Belarus, where Bakiyev currently resides, have not said whether they plan to return him to Kyrgyz custody. Interim government officials maintain that Belarus is obligated by treaties between former Soviet states to extradite Bakiyev.

Otunbayeva launched the new government [JURIST report] after Bakiyev fled the capital earlier this month. Interim officials have had difficulty securing the nation in the wake of Bakiyev's ouster, facing pro-Bakiyev protests and questions about the new administration's legitimacy. Last week, Kyrgyzstan interim deputy leader Omurbek Tekebayev announced [JURIST report] that the country will hold a referendum on a new constitution this summer. That same week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the interim government to conduct an investigation into the violence that resulted in Bakiyev's overthrow. UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) [advocacy website] Executive Director Jan Kubis [official profile] said [press release] earlier this month that Kyrgyzstan needs international support in order to continue democratic reforms. The new government has received support from both the US and Russia.

Otunbayeva launched the new government [JURIST report] after Bakiyev fled the capital earlier this month. Interim officials have had difficulty securing the nation in the wake of Bakiyev's ouster, facing pro-Bakiyev protests and questions about the new administration's legitimacy. Last week, Kyrgyzstan interim deputy leader Omurbek Tekebayev announced [JURIST report] that the country will hold a referendum on a new constitution this summer. That same week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the interim government to conduct an investigation into the violence that resulted in Bakiyev's overthrow. UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) [advocacy website] Executive Director Jan Kubis [official profile] said [press release] earlier this month that Kyrgyzstan needs international support in order to continue democratic reforms. The new government has received support from both the US and Russia.

Alleged prisoner abuse linked to the war on terror in Afghanistan has received international attention. This month a retired Canadian military officer who served in Afghanistan said that Canadian soldiers believed that prisoners may have been abused [Globe and Mail report] after being transferred to prison facilities in Afghanistan. Human rights groups have also criticized military procedures in the country. Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed habeas corpus petitions [JURIST report] on behalf of four detainees held at Bagram Air Base, claiming that none of the men has engaged in hostile behavior directed at the US, nor are they members of groups that purport to do so. In January, the US Department of Defense released a list of names of 645 prisoners detained at Bagram in response to a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed [JURIST reports] by the ACLU last September. Prisoners at Bagram have launched previous habeas corpus challenges [JURIST report] in US courts but thus far have been less successful than those held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] A US military official has said that the US is in negotiations to transfer non-Afghan detainees at Bagram Air Base [official website; JURIST news archive] back to their home countries, Al Jazeera reported [text] Tuesday. The military intends to return the detainees to their countries of origin in anticipation of a transfer of the facility [JURIST report] to Afghan authorities at the end of the year. Although the military has refused to confirm the number of foreign nationals being held at the base, it is believed that approximately 30 to 60 are being detained. Rights of foreign nationals in US overseas prisons continue to present pressing legal questions as the Obama administration contemplates handing additional authority over to the Afghan government. Compounding the issue is the fact that detainees at the facility have recently alleged torture [JURIST report] at a secret prison housed within the air base, bringing the facility into sharper focus for the US government.

Alleged prisoner abuse linked to the war on terror in Afghanistan has received international attention. This month a retired Canadian military officer who served in Afghanistan said that Canadian soldiers believed that prisoners may have been abused [Globe and Mail report] after being transferred to prison facilities in Afghanistan. Human rights groups have also criticized military procedures in the country. Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed habeas corpus petitions [JURIST report] on behalf of four detainees held at Bagram Air Base, claiming that none of the men has engaged in hostile behavior directed at the US, nor are they members of groups that purport to do so. In January, the US Department of Defense released a list of names of 645 prisoners detained at Bagram in response to a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed [JURIST reports] by the ACLU last September. Prisoners at Bagram have launched previous habeas corpus challenges [JURIST report] in US courts but thus far have been less successful than those held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday allowed a suit to proceed against drug maker Merck & Co. [corporate website] over the safety record of its painkiller Vioxx [JURIST news archive]. The court ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the statute of limitations in a securities fraud lawsuit begins to run once the plaintiff actually discovered or a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the violation - whichever comes first. Investors brought the class action suit against Merck in 2003, alleging that it had deliberately concealed information about Vioxx. The case was dismissed [JURIST report] by a federal judge in April 2007 after he determined that investors were on "inquiry notice" of the alleged fraud in September 2001 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] released a warning letter [text, PDF] about the painkiller. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated the case [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in September 2008, finding that the district judge had "acted prematurely in finding as a matter of law that [the investors] were on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud." In affirming the decision below, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:

Construing this limitations statute for the first time, we hold that a cause of action accrues (1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover, or (2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, "the facts constituting the violation" - whichever comes first. We also hold that the "facts constituting the violation" include the fact of scienter, "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud,"

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that imposing class arbitration on parties when that issue is silent in the parties' arbitration clauses is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 USC §§ 1-14 text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had ruled [opinion, PDF] that construing the arbitration clause to permit class arbitration "did not manifestly disregard the law" because the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration panel would decide on the scope of the clause and, therefore, the panel did not exceed its authority. In reversing the decision below, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

Contrary to the dissent, but consistent with our precedents emphasizing the consensual basis of arbitration, we see the question as being whether the parties agreed to authorize class arbitration. Here, where the parties stipulated that there was "no agreement" on this question, it follows that the parties cannot be compelled to submit their dispute to class arbitration.

The case arose when AnimalFeeds filed a class action lawsuit against four major shipping companies, including Stolt-Nielsen [corporate websites], alleging antitrust violations. The parties had a written contract, under which their case was referred to an arbitration panel. The contract was silent as to whether class arbitrations are permissible.

Last week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] wrote [letter text] to the Indonesian parliament urging the passage of a bill that would allow civilian officials to prosecute soldiers who commit crimes against civilians. Also last week, the independent, non-governmental organization International Crisis Group (ICG) [official website] released a report [text, PDF] stating that "corruption continues to be a major lubricant for terrorist activities in Indonesia." In February, the prosecution of Antasari Azhar [CNN report], former chief of the KPK, again raised corruption concerns in the country. In January, Indonesian protesters took to the streets [BBC report] in response to corruption scandals in Yudhoyono's administration. Last year, two senior law enforcement officials resigned [JURIST report] after being linked to an alleged plot to weaken the KPK.

[JURIST] Indonesia's justice minister announced Tuesday the opening of a prison wing intended to confine individuals convicted of corruption. The new wing, part of Cipinang Penitentiary in East Jakarta, is designed to hold up to 256 inmates, although only 10 people are currently incarcerated there. The country's Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) [official website, in Bahasa] is responsible for sentencing inmates to prison terms in the new facility. The wing was added to alleviate overcrowding [JURIST news archive] in the Indonesian prison system and was also in response to criticism that wealthy prisoners are permitted to live in luxury. Anti-corruption reform has been one of the primary concerns of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono [NYT profile], and the opening of the prison wing highlights corruption concerns in the civilian and military branches of the government.

Last week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] wrote [letter text] to the Indonesian parliament urging the passage of a bill that would allow civilian officials to prosecute soldiers who commit crimes against civilians. Also last week, the independent, non-governmental organization International Crisis Group (ICG) [official website] released a report [text, PDF] stating that "corruption continues to be a major lubricant for terrorist activities in Indonesia." In February, the prosecution of Antasari Azhar [CNN report], former chief of the KPK, again raised corruption concerns in the country. In January, Indonesian protesters took to the streets [BBC report] in response to corruption scandals in Yudhoyono's administration. Last year, two senior law enforcement officials resigned [JURIST report] after being linked to an alleged plot to weaken the KPK.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that imposing class arbitration on parties when that issue is silent in the parties' arbitration clauses is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 USC §§ 1-14 text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had ruled [opinion, PDF] that construing the arbitration clause to permit class arbitration "did not manifestly disregard the law" because the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration panel would decide on the scope of the clause and, therefore, the panel did not exceed its authority. In reversing the decision below, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

Contrary to the dissent, but consistent with our precedents emphasizing the consensual basis of arbitration, we see the question as being whether the parties agreed to authorize class arbitration. Here, where the parties stipulated that there was "no agreement" on this question, it follows that the parties cannot be compelled to submit their dispute to class arbitration.

Noriega has been fighting extradition [JURIST report] since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

[JURIST] Former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] arrived in France Tuesday to face money laundering charges after being extradited from the US. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile] signed a surrender warrant Monday after a federal judge lifted the stay [JURIST report] blocking his extradition last month. Noriega will appear Tuesday before French prosecutors to hear the charges against him, which stem from allegedly laundering $3 million in drug profits by purchasing property in Paris. Noriega's lawyers have said they will seek his immediate release [AP report], arguing that he is immune from prosecution as a former head of state.

Noriega has been fighting extradition [JURIST report] since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

[JURIST] A Haitian judge on Monday dismissed charges of kidnapping and criminal association against all 10 members of a US missionary group arrested [JURIST report] in January but ordered one to stand trial for making "irregular travel" arrangements involving 30 Haitian children. Laura Silsby, the only missionary who has not been released by Haitian authorities, will remain in custody [CNN report] until her trial. According to a 1980 decree in the Haitian Criminal Code [text, in French], irregular travel is the term for traveling or organizing travel originating in Haiti with a foreign destination in a manner that does not comply with established laws. If convicted, Silsby could face six months to three years of incarceration.

Last month, a Haitian judge ordered [JURIST report] the release of one of the last two US missionaries out of a group of 10 who were arrested following the January 12 earthquake [JURIST news archive] in connection with their attempt to take 33 children across the Haitian border into the Dominican Republic. The judge had announced [JURIST report] in February that the two remaining missionaries would also be released after the other eight members of the missionary group affiliated with the Central Valley Baptist Church [church website] of Idaho and the New Life Children's Refuge Charity [BBC profile] were released [JURIST report] earlier that month. Haitian authorities originally charged [JURIST report] each of the 10 missionaries in February with one count of kidnapping and one count of criminal association, asserting that many of the children were not orphans.