JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Tuesday, June 8, 2010




Supreme Court temporarily blocks Arizona election subsidies
Hillary Stemple on June 8, 2010 3:26 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday issued an order [text, PDF] temporarily blocking the state of Arizona from releasing campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates under the state's campaign finance reform law [Title 16, Chapter 6, Article 2]. The order comes after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] overturned the district court's ruling and upheld the financing system [opinion, PDF] and temporarily prohibits the Ninth Circuit's ruling from going into effect. The release of subsides will remain barred until the court rules on the case or denies certiorari. The Citizens Clean Election Act was passed by Arizona voters in 1998 in order to encourage candidates for public office to accept public funding in the hopes of decreasing corruption in the form of campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. Under the law, publicly funded candidates are eligible for funds to match the amount privately financed opponents are spending on political campaigns. Supporters of the law contend that it actually increases freedom of speech [press release] in the political discourse, while opponents say the law stifles speech [AP report] decreasing overall campaign spending. The groups challenging the law are expected to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The court is not expected to determine if it will hear the case until the fall term, which means the campaign subsidies will be unavailable for publicly funded candidates for the remainder of the 2010 election cycle.

Limits on First Amendment [text] freedom of speech in the context of campaign finance [JURIST news archive] remains an area of much debate. In March, the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the Republican National Committee (RNC) [committee website] cannot raise "soft money" to use in state elections. In January, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder] to ease restrictions on political campaign spending [JURIST report] by corporations. US President Barack Obama criticized the ruling and called for new campaign finance legislation [JURIST reports] which would set low limits on dollar contributions to federal candidates, enhance disclosure rules that apply to lobbyists and earmark requests, and close the loopholes opened by Citizens United pertaining to corporate political campaign spending.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


UK to increase North Sea drilling inspections after BP oil spill
Sarah Miley on June 8, 2010 2:47 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne announced Tuesday that the government will increase inspection [press release] of North Sea oil rigs and monitoring of offshore compliance and safety standards in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill [BBC backgrounder] in the Gulf of Mexico. Huhne said that the government also established the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Group [official website] to conduct a review of the UK's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) [official website] carried out its own review and found that the current system was on par, but Huhne feels it is necessary to strengthen regulations in light of the recent Gulf oil spill:
The events unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico are devastating and will be enduring. What we are seeing will transform the regulation of deep water drilling worldwide. It's my responsibility to make sure that the oil and gas industry maintains the highest practices here in UK waters...It's clear that our safety and environmental regulatory regime is fit for purpose. It is already among the most robust in the world and the industry's record in the North Sea is strong. But the Deepwater Horizon gives us pause for thought and, given the beginning of exploration in deeper waters West of Shetland, there is every reason to increase our vigilance.
The DECC has already taken initial steps to strengthen regulations by doubling the number annual environmental inspections to drilling rigs. Huhne stated that he will review new and existing procedures as soon as the detailed analysis of the factors which caused the Deepwater explosion are available.

Huhne's announcement follows a similar press conference held last month by US President Barack Obama [official website] to announce new regulations to mitigate future oil spill disasters [JURIST report] and the current plan of action for resolving the crisis created by the BP oil spill. The US government will be suspending several offshore drilling activities including exploration of platform locations in Alaska, pending lease sales in the Gulf and Virginia, and the drilling of 33 deepwater exploratory wells in the Gulf. The government will also suspend the issuance of new permits to drill deepwater wells for six months. Obama stated that increased government regulation in the oil industry was necessary to alter the "cozy and sometimes corrupt" relationship it has built with federal regulators, specifically the Minerals Management Service (MMS) [official website]. The president admitted that even though Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar [official profile] has worked hard to reform the once notoriously corrupt MMS, more action is necessary to ameliorate that agency's malfeasance. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a result of an oil well blowout that caused an explosion 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. The BP oil spill has now surpassed the Exxon Valdez [JURIST news archive] as the worst oil spill in US history.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Head of UN-backed Guatemala anti-corruption commission resigns
Hillary Stemple on June 8, 2010 1:36 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) [official website], Carlos Castresana, resigned Monday, citing the country's failure to adequately cooperate in the fight against corruption. Castresana expressed his frustration [BBC report] with the process, indicating he felt there was nothing more he could do to end corruption under the country's current laws. He also accused Guatemala's attorney general of having ties to organized crime. Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom reiterated his country's support of the CICIG [press release, in Spanish] and promised an investigation into allegations against the attorney general. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] urged the Guatemalan government to fully comply with the recommendations [press release] made by CICIG. He also expressed UN commitment to ending corruption in Guatemala, calling CICIG a "groundbreaking initiative whose investigations and prosecutions are stirring hope in Guatemala that impunity can be defeated." Ban indicated he will select a replacement to head CICIG who can build on the progress that has already been made. CICIG's mandate runs through September 2011.

In March, following an 11-month investigation with CICIG, Guatemalan authorities arrested two high-ranking police officials [JURIST report] tasked with leading the country's war on drugs on charges of corruption and drug trafficking. Also in March, the US State Department [official website] released its 2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which highlighted Guatemala as a key player in the Latin American drug trade [text, PDF]. Corruption among high-ranking officials was cited as one of the country's biggest problems. The Congress of Guatemala [official website, in Spanish] voted to create CICIG [JURIST report] in 2007 in order to investigate organized crime and official corruption.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Taiwan ex-president Chen found not guilty of misusing funds
Drew Singer on June 8, 2010 1:27 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Taipei District Court [official website, in Chinese] on Tuesday found former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] not guilty of embezzling USD $330,000. Chen was indicted in September [JURIST report] for allegedly using funds received from the Foreign Affairs Ministry [official website, in Chinese] for diplomatic trips and using it to finance his son's studies in the US. The court held that the indictment was without credibility [CNA report], was contradictory, and was not supported by the facts presented. Prosecutor General Huang Shyh-ming said that he may appeal to the Taiwan High Court [official websites, in Chinese]. Chen has maintained his innocence, claiming that current Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou [official website] is using Chen's trial to distance himself from Chen's anti-China views. The High Court is scheduled to rule [Taiwan News report] on charges of money laundering and corruption against Chen's family on Friday. Chen was also indicted in December for allegedly embezzling US$20 million from banks [JURIST report] that sought to protect themselves during Chen's financial reform program.

The September indictment came two weeks after Chen was sentenced to life in prison [JURIST report] on corruption charges. Chen sought to apply US law in the case, claiming that former colonial power Japan never transferred power over Taiwan to its current government. In October, Taiwan's Constitutional Court [official website, in Chinese] dismissed an appeal [JURIST report] in which Chen claimed his constitutional rights were breached after the judges in his trial were replaced. In August, Chen filed suit [JURIST report] against the judges, accusing them of illegally prolonging his detention. Some legal experts believe that the allegations are evidence that Taiwan needs more accountability reforms [JURIST comment].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


ICTR transfers 25 cases to Rwandan jurisdiction
Dwyer Arce on June 8, 2010 12:21 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] on Tuesday transferred [press release] the cases of 25 suspects in the 1994 Rwandan conflict [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive] to Rwandan authorities. The suspects, who have been investigated but not yet indicted by the ICTR, are believed to be in hiding abroad. Rwandan Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga [New Times profile] has stated that his government will complete the investigations [RNA report], issue international arrest warrants, and try the suspects at open trials in domestic courts [GlobaLex backgrounder]. Ngoga characterized the transfer as a "vote of confidence" in the country's judicial system. ICTR Chief Prosecutor Justice Hassan Bubacar Jallow [official profile] praised the improvements made to the capacity and infrastructure of the Rwandan judiciary and expressed his intention to transfer more cases to Rwanda as called for under UN Security Council [official website] Resolution 1503 [text, PDF]. The transfers come after those of 35 other open investigations to Rwanda.

The transfers are a part of the strategy intended to finish [completion strategy text, PDF] the court's trial work by 2011. There are currently 24 cases in progress, and two others await trial. In June 2009, Ngoga told the UN Security Council [JURIST report] that the decisions by the ICTR not to transfer pending cases to Rwandan jurisdiction, including genocide suspects Jean-Baptiste Gatete [TrialWatch profile; JURIST report] and Yussuf Munyakazi [case materials; JURIST report] undermines his country's judicial reforms and hinders national reconciliation. Ngoga said that "[e]rroneous, factually incorrect assessments" and occasional "deliberate misrepresentations" of the country's human rights situation by advocacy organizations like Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] have also had a negative effect [New Times report] on the country's progress. Emphasizing that Rwanda has continued to cooperate with the tribunal, Ngoga expressed the country's desire to have the cases transferred to Rwandan jurisdiction at the completion of the ICTR's mandate. The ICTR was established to try genocide suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, died.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


China government defends Internet censorship laws
Hillary Stemple on June 8, 2010 12:16 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Chinese government on Tuesday defended its Internet censorship laws in a report [materials] detailing Internet usage within the country. China reported that nearly 30 percent of its population currently has access to the Internet and that they expect that number to increase to nearly 50 percent in the next five years. The report recognizes the usefulness of Internet access in gaining and disseminating information and in aiding citizens in "lawful, government participation." Additionally, the report stresses that Chinese citizens have a protected right to freedom of speech on the Internet, but that the government does not recognize that freedom as an unlimited freedom. Limitations that are placed on Internet speech include laws and regulations that prohibit the "spread of information that contains content subverting state power, undermining national unity, or infringing upon national honour and interests." The report also outlines Internet security protections and cites the need for international cooperation, stating:
Within Chinese territory the Internet is under the jurisdiction of Chinese sovereignty. The Internet sovereignty of China should be respected and protected. ... National situations and cultural traditions differ among countries, and so concern about Internet security also differs. Concerns about Internet security of different countries should be fully respected. We should seek common ground and reserve differences, promote development through exchanges, and jointly protect international Internet security.
China announced new regulations [JURIST report] restricting Internet use in February, which caused many Internet users to register their websites overseas in order to avoid government regulation.

In March, Google [corporate website] officially stopped censoring search results [JURIST report] to Chinese users after a legal impasse was reached between the Internet giant and the Chinese government. Google initially threatened to discontinue operations in China [JURIST report] in January due to the country's overarching Internet censorship. Google's action was in response to a cyber attack on its Gmail service in December, which targeted the e-mail accounts of human rights activists in China and drew the ire of rights groups around the world. Google indicated that it would work with the Chinese government to find a way to allow an, "unfiltered search engine within the law as well," but also noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, it would close its offices there and shut down its Google.cn website. China responded [JURIST report] by reiterating its commitment to open Internet, but stressed that international Internet companies must follow Chinese law.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


DC Circuit denies Guantanamo detainee habeas petition
Sarah Miley on June 8, 2010 11:25 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Wednesday denied [opinion, PDF] a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Adham Mohammed Ali Awad, allowing for continued incarceration of the Yemeni national by the US government. A three-judge panel unanimously upheld the district court's decision [JURIST report], which referred to Awad's role in armed conflict as "gossamer thin," but still denied the detainee's request for relief from indefinite incarceration. Awad is accused of participating in combat training against the US in Afghanistan and is being charged in an al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] raid of an Afghan hospital. Writing the opinion for the panel, Chief Judge David Sentelle confirmed both the factual and legal findings of the lower court, clarifying two legal standards for the court to use going forward. First the circuit court confirmed that in defending prolonged imprisonment of a detainee, the government is not required to show the detainee was part of the "command structure" of a terrorist group, but simply "part of" the organization. This statement lowers the threshold for the amount of evidence needed for incarceration. The threshold was further limited by court's clarifying statement regarding a previous ruling [text, PDF], holding that preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof to be used by the government in justifying continued imprisonment. The case was actually decided on June 2, but a redacted version was issued after the government verified that all confidential information had been removed [court order, PDF] from the opinion. The circuit court will now decide whether to reevaluate the judgment en banc.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] has ruled in favor of the government in 13 habeas corpus cases [JURIST news archive], while Guantanamo detainees have prevailed in 36 cases. Last month, the district court ordered the release [JURIST report] of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohammed Hassen [NYT profile]. Hassen had been initially detained in March 2002 following a raid in Faisalabad by Pakistani security forces. He has maintained throughout his detention that he had traveled to Pakistan to study the Qur'an [text] at Salafi University and had no knowledge of al Qaeda prior to his detention. The court issued another ruling in May ordering the release [JURIST report] of Russian Guantanamo detainee Ravil Mingazov [NYT profile]. Mingazov, a former ballet dancer, was captured in Pakistan in 2002 [Miami Herald report] and turned over to US authorities. The Pentagon claimed he was captured in a raid on a suspected terrorist safe house and that he had attended a terror training camp, but Mingazov denied the claims. Mingazov is seeking release to a country other than Russia, after Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported in 2007 that seven former Guantanamo detainees suffered abuse and torture [JURIST report] at the hands of Russian law enforcement agencies following their release from US custody in 2004.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Switzerland parliament rejects US banking treaty
Dwyer Arce on June 8, 2010 10:16 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Swiss Federal Assembly [official website] on Tuesday rejected an agreement [text, PDF] with the US that would have allowed Swiss bank UBS [corporate website; JURIST news archive] to disclose account information of clients suspected by the US government of tax evasion. The Swiss National Council [official website], the lower house of parliament, voted 104-76 [NYT report] to reject the treaty, opting to send it to a national referendum [Reuters backgrounder] if they cannot reconcile their differences with the upper house of parliament. The agreement would allow UBS to turn over information of 4,450 US clients to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [official website]. The treaty will now return to the Council of States [official website], the upper house of parliament, which voted last week [AP report] to approve the treaty and forgo a referendum. The Swiss government hopes to pass a final version of the agreement before parliament adjourns June 18 [DW report] in order to make the information available by August, a deadline it had agreed to with the Obama administration. The tax conflict has already cost UBS $780 million USD in fines levied by the US Department of Justice [official website] for its admitted assistance [BBC report] of US citizens in avoiding taxes.

The agreement is currently before the parliament due to a court ruling in January, when the Swiss Federal Administrative Court [official website, in French] ruled [JURIST report] that an American taxpayer's financial information at UBS may not be disclosed to the IRS pursuant to the August 2009 agreement [JURIST report]. The agreement was found to conflict with a previous treaty, requiring the approval of parliament. Also in January, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled [JURIST report] that the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority [official website, in German] violated the law in February 2009 when it ordered UBS to disclose information to the US on more than 250 of the bank's clients without the authority to do so. In September, the US and Switzerland signed a treaty [JURIST report] that would increase the amount of information shared between the two nations on would-be tax evaders. The agreement came one month after a Swiss banker and lawyer were indicted in US federal court [JURIST report] for helping clients hide assets. In March 2009, the Swiss announced their intention to adopt a more stringent definition [JURIST report] of tax evasion and to work with other countries to investigate such claims.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Virginia AG responds to motion to dismiss health care lawsuit
Hillary Stemple on June 8, 2010 9:57 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli [official website] on Monday filed a response [text, PDF] to the federal government's motion to dismiss [text, PDF; JURIST report] the state's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of recently passed health care [JURIST news archive] legislation. The suit [complaint, PDF] was filed in response to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [HR 3590 materials] and contends that Congress's use of the Commerce Clause [text] to compel citizens of Virginia to purchase health insurance is an extension of its power and breach of federalism principles. The federal government argued in its motion to dismiss that Virginia lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because they have not been harmed by the statute and the provision requiring individual purchase of health insurance does not go into effect until 2014. The federal government also argued that the statute is constitutional under Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce. Cuccinelli contends that Virginia's lawsuit is vital to the future definition of federalism [press release] stating:
If the government prevails and Congress may use the Commerce Clause to order Americans to buy private health insurance, then Congress will have been granted a virtually unlimited power to order you to buy anything. That would amount to the end of federalism and our more than 220 years of constitutional government.
Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss are scheduled for July 1.

The Obama administration is also facing several other health care lawsuits. Last month, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [association website], a small business lobby group, joined a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform law. The NFIB joined 20 states in a legal battle that began in March when a complaint seeking injunction and declaratory relief was filed [JURIST reports] in a Florida federal court. Also last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed [JURIST report] its first response [brief text] to one of the lawsuits challenging the new health care law. The suit [complaint, PDF], filed in March by conservative public interest group the Thomas More Law Center [advocacy website] on the same day President Barack Obama signed the bill into law [JURIST report], argues that the mandate that all individuals carry health insurance is unconstitutional.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Rights commission orders closure of Guatemala gold mine
Sarah Miley on June 8, 2010 9:49 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [official website] on Monday ordered Goldcorp, one of the world's largest gold producers, to shut down the company's Marlin mine [corporate websites] in Guatemala, pending an investigation into human rights abuses and environmental violations [press release]. The commission, part of the DC-based Organization of American States (OAS) [official website], is conducting an investigation into whether the Guatemalan government allowed the Canada-based gold producer to open the mine without the consent of the local Mayan communities. The commission also held that precautionary measures were necessary because the "environmental and hydrological impact area would encompass the territories of at least 18 communities of the Maya people." In a report sent to the commission last week, the government claimed that no human rights violations [elPeriodico report, in Spanish] had occurred against the indigenous residents, and no contamination has resulted from the mine's operation. The commission's order is supposed to be binding on member states of the OAS, but local reports hold that Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom [official website, in Spanish] opposes closing the Marlin mine [elPeriodico report, in Spanish]. Goldcorp stated that it has not yet received an official statement [Globe and Mail report] from the government on how it will respond to the ruling.

US mining companies have also been facing accusations of human rights abuses and environmental hazard creation. In August, an indigenous tribe in Indonesia filed a $30 million lawsuit [JURIST report] against a subsidiary of US mining company Freeport-McRoRan Copper & Gold [corporate website] for numerous environmental and human rights violations. The Amungme people are suing PT Freeport [corporate website, in Indonesian] for damages to their ancestral lands [Jakarta Globe report] in the Papua province, claiming that they are the rightful owners of the 2.6 million hectares on which the mine is located because the 1967 contract between the Indonesian government and Freeport was executed without their approval. The plaintiffs also allege that they were promised an annual fee of $1 million that was never received. The South Jakarta District Court appointed a judge to seek a mediated settlement between the parties.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US Navy to appeal acquittal of Marine for Iraqi civilian killing
Dwyer Arce on June 8, 2010 8:49 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Navy [official website] announced Monday that it will appeal an appeals court ruling overturning the conviction of US Marine Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III [JURIST news archive]. Hutchins, who was convicted in 2007 [JURIST report] for the 2006 kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdania [USMC timeline; JURIST news archive], remains in the brig [LAT report] at Camp Pendleton while the Navy appeals to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [official websites]. Hutchins's defense attorney Marine Capt. Babu Kaza has described the appeal as without merit, and has called it politically motivated. The appeal comes despite a recommendation to the contrary [AP report] by a legal adviser that it would not likely yield a different result. Prosecutors have 30 days to submit briefs supporting the appeal, and oral arguments are expected to take place in September. If the appeal fails, the case would be returned to Camp Pendleton where a general will decide whether to retry the case.

In April, a military appeals court reversed [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] Hutchins's conviction, citing lack of a fair trial. In an 8-1 decision, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals [official website] ruled that the departure of one of Hutchins's primary attorneys shortly before the court-martial [JURIST news archive] began resulted in an unfair trial. The ruling made it possible for Hutchins to be restored to his prior rank, which was reduced to private following his conviction. Hutchins was serving an 11-year sentence, reduced from 15 years [JURIST report]. He was convicted in 2007 of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, making a false official statement, and larceny. Six Marines pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to charges related to their roles in the incident, which involved Awad being removed from his residence and killed, then arranged with a shovel and firearm to appear as if he were planting an improvised explosive device.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Israel launches internal military probe of flotilla attack
Ann Riley on June 8, 2010 8:27 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [official website] on Monday launched an internal investigation [press release] of the May 31 Israeli raid on several Turkish ships bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip [BBC backgrounder]. Chief of the General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi [official profile] named Major General Giora Island to head an internal team of experts to investigate the flotilla operation. The team is made up of professionals outside of the chain of command of this specific operation. The investigatory unit will study the outcomes of the incident, "establish lessons," and present its findings by July 4. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [official website] and the nation's seven senior ministers also decided on Monday to establish a panel of jurists [Haaretz report] to investigate the attack. The panel's inquiry will be independent from the IDF investigation. To restore normal diplomatic ties [Hurriyet report] with Israel, the Turkish government has requested the establishment of an international inquiry, a public apology, and an end to the Gaza blockade.

Earlier this week, the Israeli ambassador to the US rejected [JURIST report] the idea of an international inquiry into the flotilla attack. The proposal, put forth by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website], would have established a panel composed of representatives from Israel, Turkey, and other unnamed countries. Netanyahu was reported to have expressed reservations [Haaretz report] regarding an international inquiry due to the precedent it would set. Last week, the UN Human Rights Council [official website] condemned [JURIST report] Israel's raid on the ships and initiated an independent investigation into possible violations of international law. Additionally, the UN Security Council [official website] called [JURIST report] for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the raid. The Turkish ship on which the violence occurred was one of six organized by the Free Gaza Movement [advocacy website] to carry protesters and humanitarian supplies to the isolated Palestinian enclave. The Gaza naval blockade began in 2007 after Hamas [CFR backgrounder] forcibly expelled their chief rival, Fatah [CFR backgrounder] from Gaza.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Rights group urges European states to stop deportation of Iraq refugees
Andrea Bottorff on June 8, 2010 7:41 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Monday urged European leaders to stop the upcoming deportation of asylum seekers to Iraq [press release] because their human rights may be violated in unsafe regions of the country. Authorities in the UK, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands are taking part in a joint effort to return the refugees to Iraq after the asylum petitions of many of the refugees were denied. AI contends that the planned deportations violate the rules of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) [official website], which oppose forced returns [text, PDF] to specific areas in Iraq considered too dangerous for civilians. The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR) [advocacy website] also condemned the return of refugees to high-risk areas in Iraq, alleging that more than 100 Iraqi refugees in the UK will be deported this week [press release]. The deportations are scheduled for Wednesday.

Last month, an Iraqi refugee won a suit [BBC report] against the UK Home Office [official website] in which he claimed that he was threatened illegally with deportation to Iraq after being accused of committing terrorist activities. The UK High Court found that the man's arrest and detention were illegal. The UK government also announced last month that it will review [JURIST report] the country's Human Rights Act [BBC backgrounder] after two Pakistani terror suspects successfully avoided deportation due to concerns for their safety. Certain regions in Iraq remain dangerous [JURIST comment], with violence often targeted against civilians and minorities [JURIST report].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org