 |
|

Legal news from Monday, November 12, 2012 |
 |
|


UN elects 18 members including US to serve on rights council
Brandon Gatto on November 12, 2012 3:38 PM ET

[JURIST] The UN General Assembly (UNGA) [official website] on Monday elected 18 countries [press release], including the US, to a three-year term on the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] beginning January 1. The secret ballot election was held at the UN headquarters in New York, and the following UNGA members were elected [UN News Centre report] to serve: Argentina, Brazil, Ivory Coast, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Montenegro, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, United Arab Emirates, US, and Venezuela. The UNHRC, which is composed of 47 members, is an inter-governmental body of the UN responsible for promoting and protecting human rights around the world. It is also tasked with making recommendations for specific human rights violations. Significantly, this is only the second time that the US has elected to a serve on either the UNHRC, which was created by UNGA Resolution 61/251 [text] in 2006, or the former Commission on Human Rights that it replaced. The re-election was welcomed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official website], who pledged [press release] that the US would "continue to work closely with the international community to address urgent and serious human rights concerns worldwide and to strengthen the Council."
The US was first elected [JURIST report] to a seat on the UNHRC in May 2009 when the country received 90 percent of the votes from the UNGA. In April of that year, the US State Department [official website] released a set of commitments and pledges [text, PDF] to human rights in anticipation of the election. Also in April, the US openly announced its intent to seek a seat on the UNHRC [JURIST report].


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

|

Italy prosecutors charge credit-rating agencies with manipulating market
Brandon Gatto on November 12, 2012 2:48 PM ET

[JURIST] Italian prosecutors on Monday filed suit against five former employees of Standard and Poor's (S&P) and two former employees of Fitch [corporate websites] for allegedly manipulating the market and abusing privileged information that led to the rating agencies' downgrades of Italy. Though magistrates in Rome and Milan have refused to support the claim, prosecutors from the southern town of Trani contend that the agencies failed to respect European rules of transparency [Reuters report]. Specifically, they allege that S&P and Fitch reports regarding Italy's banking system were inaccurate and that one such report caused drastic losses in the Italian market after it was leaked during market hours [Corriere della Sera report, in Italian] on May 20, 2011. S&P denied the allegations [Corriere della Sera report, in Italian] on Monday while Fitch has yet to issue a response. Charges against Moody's [corporate website], a peer rating agency, were recently dropped after prosecutors conceded that there was a lack of evidence proving a manipulation of the market. This is the first European court case related to a nation's rating cuts.
Rating agencies have received consistent criticism for not predicting the subprime mortgage debt crisis of 2008 and 2009. In general, many European policymakers contend that the agencies were too quick to downgrade EU nations in the face of various bailouts and austerity programs. In a procedural ruling last week, the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County [official website] ruled that the state's attorney general may proceed [WSJ report] with a case accusing S&P of misleading investors during the financial crisis. Also last week, an Australian court ruled that S&P did mislead investors [AP report] when it gave its highest investment rating to risky securities just before the global financial crisis. In August 2011, S&P received considerable criticism from American policy makers [CBS News report] after the agency downgraded the US credit-rating from AAA to AA+.


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

|

UK court denies Jordan extradition request for Muslim cleric Abu Qatada
Michael Haggerson on November 12, 2012 12:58 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) [official website] on Monday granted the appeal [judgment, PDF] of Muslim cleric Abu Qatada [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], allowing him not to be extradited to Jordan. The judge ruled to not extradite Qatada because he could not receive a fair trial in Jordan where he is accused of organizing bomb attacks [BBC report]. Qatada has been described as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe," and UK officials believe he should be kept in prison for national security reasons. However, he has never formally been charged with an offense, and he has been in and out of custody either in prison or some form of house arrest. The judge stated that he did not believe that Jordanian authorities would mistreat Qatada, but Jordanian law allows the use of evidence gained as a result of the torture of others and thus Qatada could not receive a fair trial. Jordanian authorities had assured the court that they would not use any evidence gained from torture, but the court remained unconvinced. As a result of the ruling Qatada will be released on bail on Tuesday subject to a curfew and other restrictions. Qatada's lawyers stated that any restriction on Qatada's freedom was improper. UK prosecutors were very displeased with the ruling and announced that they plan to pursue an appeal and reiterated that they believed that Qatada was a very dangerous individual.
The SIAC denied bail [JURIST report] to Qatada in May. In early February he was released on bail [JURIST report] after he made an application for bail following the ECHR block of his deportation, but he was arrested again in April to begin deportation proceedings. Qatada was granted political asylum by the UK in 1994. When he was arrested in 2001 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, police seized a sizable sum of money in various currencies for which no explanation was given. Later in 2001, he went into hiding to avoid being arrested and detained under the then-proposed Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. He was arrested again in 2002 and held until March 2005 when he was released pursuant to a House of Lords judgment declaring his detention without trial to be unlawful. In February 2009 the ECHR ordered the UK to pay £2,500 in damages [JURIST report] to Qatada after determining that his imprisonment violated the European Convention on Human Rights [materials]. Despite his previous grant of asylum and fears of torture and persecution, UK Law Lords in February 2009 ruled that Qatada could be returned [JURIST report] to Jordan to face terrorism charges. The February decision overruled an April 2008 Court of Appeal decision blocking his deportation [JURIST report].


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

|

Philippines high court rescinds decision to broadcast Maguindanao massacre trial
Sarah Paulsworth on November 12, 2012 8:59 AM ET

[JURIST] The Philippines Supreme Court [official website] said on Monday that it would not allow the live broadcast of the trial over the November 2009 Maguindanao Massacre [CSM backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. This decision reverses a 2011 decision to allow a live broadcast [JURIST report] of the trial of several members of a clan accused of killing 57 people, including 31 journalists, who supported a rival political candidate. Philippines presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said that the president is opposed to the high court's decision [Manila Bulletin report], which could potentially impede the transparency of the trial. The 2011 decision to allow live broadcasting marked the first time [AFP report] in the Philippines that a trial would have been broadcast live.
Although the high court's 2011 decision was hailed as a landmark decision, it did not give reporters free reign in the courtroom. At that time the court said it would not allow broadcasters to bring in their own cameras but would instead provide a single, stationary, widescreen camera. No panning or zooming was to be allowed, and broadcasters would have been obligated to show the entire proceedings from beginning to end each day, commercial free. The Philippines Department of Justice [official website] had implicated Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines' semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and several of his followers in the November 2009 slayings of campaign workers, journalists and supporters of family political rival Esmael Mangudadatu. The court noted that broadcasting the trial was important because of the impossibility of fitting the large number of interested parties into the courtroom, including the families of those killed and of the witnesses. Also in June 2011, a Philippine court froze USD $23 million worth of assets [JURIST report] owned by the Ampatuan family, who are accused of ordering the 2009 slayings, while investigators determine how the Ampatuans accumulated accumulated the assets.


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

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