Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Tuesday that Google did not violate trademark law by selling advertising linked to trademarked names. The court reasoned that Google was merely a platform for ads, clearing all search engines from trademark liability and protecting their main source of revenue. The luxury-goods group LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) first brought suit four years ago accusing Google’s AdWords system of infringing upon companies’ trademarks by allowing advertisers, including competitors and those selling imitation or counterfeit products, to purchase advertising space when a user searches for a product or trademarked name. While the court found AdWords to be a legal “information society service,” it charged advertisers to make it clear that their products are different than the trademarked keyword. Google responded that the judgment reinforced the “fundamental principle behind the free flow of information over the internet.” Additionally, Google stated that it works with brand owners to remove links to websites selling counterfeit goods.
Tuesday’s judgment follows an advisory opinion against LVMH issued by the EJC last year after the case was referred by the Cour de Cassation, France’s highest court. In a separate case, a French court in February ordered Internet auction house eBay to pay LVMH €200,000 ($275,000) in damages for paying search engines to direct customers to counterfeit LVMH products. The court found that eBay registered names similar to Louis Vuitton with search engines knowing that consumers looking for counterfeit products would search using those terms and be led to auctions on eBay selling those goods. In 2008, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that eBay has no duty to actively monitor its site for counterfeit goods. Earlier in 2008, however, a French court ordered eBay to pay LVMH $63 million for failing to prevent the sale of counterfeit luxury goods.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday ordered the release of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who had been accused of planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian who has been in US custody for over seven years, brought a habeas corpus petition, claiming that he had been tortured in prison and had made confessions under duress. Slahi was once considered a key al Qaeda leader and prosecutors had sought the death penalty against him. However, a prominent government prosecutor stepped down from the case because he did not support the alleged abusive treatment used against Slahi. The judge’s decision is currently classified, although the court suggested that the files will become available at a future date.
Last year, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an application by Slahi requesting access to records of interrogations conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) both in Canada and at Guantanamo Bay. Slahi had sought the release of the records to corroborate his allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay as part of his ongoing habeas corpus petition.

[JURIST] Bolivian President Evo Morales on Monday called on the UN to declare access to safe drinking water a basic human right, marking World Water Day. While addressing the UN General Assembly’s High Level Interactive Dialogue on Water, UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro reiterated the importance of access to clean water resources as “vital for economic growth” and “central to public health, food security and stable societies,” but fell short of declaring it a basic human right. Migiro also stressed that continuing climate change will only make the problem harder to address. Director General of the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Irina Bokova also released a statement saying “water must be clean, it must stay clean and, most importantly, it must be accessible to all.” Morales’s administration has been working to increase access for Bolivian citizens to clean water since 2006, investing in new water and sewage systems throughout the country.
Morales has also been an advocate of other environmental reform. Disappointed in the outcome of the recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark, Bolivia is hosting an international meeting on climate change next month, one week after the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is scheduled to hold another round of formal climate talks. While no legally-binding agreement was reached at the conclusion of the COP15 in December, 192 UN member countries agreed to “take note” of a non-binding Copenhagen Accord developed by leaders from the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa in an effort to limit the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund was also established to assist poor nations in reducing the effects of climate change. The accord creates annexes by which countries will pledge to attain national emission reductions by 2020, but the pledges are not binding. Critics of the Copenhagen Accord have said it lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure compliance, and that it is unlikely to limit global temperature rise to the indicated levels.

[JURIST] A German court on Tuesday sentenced former Nazi SS member Heinrich Boere to life in prison for the 1944 murders of three Dutch civilians. Boere’s trial began in October after he was declared medically fit to stand trial. During the trial, Boere admitted to the reprisal killings of a bicycle shop owner, a pharmacist, and a civilian member of the Dutch resistance, which he carried out as part of a SS death squad. Boere was sentenced to death in absentia by a Dutch court in 1949, but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison. Boere never served his sentence, as one German court refused to extradite him because of the probability that he was a German national, and another refused the request that he serve his sentence in a German jail due to the likelihood the trial was unfair because Boere was not present for the proceedings. Boere plans to appeal the court’s decision and will not begin serving his sentence until the appellate process is finished.
In November, a German court began the trial of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk, marking the first time a Nazi war crimes trial will focus on a low-ranking foreigner rather than a commander. The Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk faces 27,900 accessory accounts stemming from his alleged involvement as a guard at Sobibor concentration camp. In August, a German district court sentenced former Nazi army officer Josef Scheungraber to life in prison for the 1944 reprisal killing of 10 Italian civilians. Scheungraber was convicted on 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder for ordering soldiers to blow up a barn in Falzano di Cortona, Tuscany, after forcing 11 civilians inside.

[JURIST] The US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Monday voted 13-10 in favor of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, aimed at increasing oversight of the American financial system in the wake of the recent economic crisis. The vote on the legislative initiative, introduced by Senate Democrats earlier this month, was split along party lines, with all Republican members voting against the proposed legislation but declining to negotiate in committee despite the 401 amendments that had been filed. The bill includes proposals for creating consumer protection entities with oversight over consumer lending, complex companies, and the insurance industries; increased regulation for financial instruments, banking, and corporate governance; and new rules to strengthen accountability in applying financial regulation. Two prominent features of the bill are the Volcker Rule prohibiting banks from engaging in financial activities for profit where the funds do not benefit the banks’ customers, and an initiative that gives the government power to break up financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.” Ranking Republican senator Richard Shelby decried such an early vote, saying that “orcing the Banking Committee to vote on this proposal in a single week is unrealistic and undercuts the potential for bipartisan agreement given the length and complexity of the bill.” Senate voting on the bill is expected to be a protracted process until a version to which both Democrats and Republicans will agree is reached.
In December, the US House of Representatives approved a similar bill to create a consumer financial protection agency. The House Financial Services Committee had approved the bill in October, after originally delaying it at the behest of financial industry leaders in July. The creation of the agency is a key step in achieving the Obama administration’s stated goal of tightening financial industry regulations. In June, the administration proposed a broad series of regulatory reforms aimed at restoring confidence in the US financial system. In 2009, the first legislative proposal to reform the financial system since the 2008 economic crisis was met with resistance and resulted in the committee’s development of the current bill.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases. In Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning, the court heard arguments on whether, in calculating a debtor’s “projected disposable income,” a bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor’s income or expenses will differ from her prior income or expenses. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that a debtor’s current monthly income is the appropriate income to use in this analysis. Counsel for the petitioner, the bankruptcy trustee, argued:
The Tenth Circuit and Stephanie Lanning were wrong in ignoring the new Chapter 13 means test contained in the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. The amendments to the 2005 Bankruptcy Code were intended to reduce judicial discretion by inserting a formula rather than the judicial discretion that had previously been accorded to judges and to the litigants.Counsel for the debtor argued that, “the word “projected” tells us to get a realistic estimation of what that amount of money’s going to be.” Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.In Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., the court heard arguments on whether a challenge to state tax exemptions can occur in federal court when the suit does not involve the challenger’s own tax assessment, but rather others that are similarly situated. The court will review whether the Tax Injunction Act or comity principles bar federal court jurisdiction. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, which granted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that neither the Tax Injunction Act nor the general principles of comity barred the plaintiff’s claim. Counsel for the petitioner, Ohio Tax Commissioner Richard Levin, argued:Respondents are natural gas suppliers who object to the way Ohio taxes them. Their suit belongs in State court rather than Federal court for two independent reasons. First, principles of comity and federalism dictate that the State court should resolve challenges to the validity of their own tax laws. And second, the Tax Injunction Act squarely prohibits Federal courts from issuing declaratory judgments holding State tax laws unconstitutional.Counsel for Commerce Energy argued that federal courts have jurisdiction over the claim.

[JURIST] Attorneys general from several states said Monday that they plan to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill passed Sunday by the US House of Representatives. Attorneys general from at least 12 states – Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia – plan to file challenges after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law. Virginia plans to file a separate lawsuit from the single lawsuit to be brought by the other states. At issue in the lawsuits is the power of Congress to require individuals to purchase insurance. Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, and the states have decided to challenge this power’s application to health care legislation. Obama is scheduled to sign the bill on Tuesday.
Last week, Idaho Governor CL “Butch” Otter (R) became the first governor to sign a bill into state law banning any federal mandate for individuals to have health insurance. The Idaho Health Freedom Act orders the state attorney general to file a lawsuit against the national government over any law making health insurance mandatory. Two weeks ago, the Virginia General Assembly passed a similar bill. The bill, called the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, says that no individual shall be held liable if they refuse to sign up for health care. Governor Robert McDonnell (R) has said that he will sign the bill into law. About 30 other states are working on similar measures to negate the federal mandate for health insurance.

[JURIST]] The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to reconsider a petition filed by former Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to stop his extradition to France on money laundering charges. Noriega’s lawyers filed the petition last month after the Supreme Court denied certiorari on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented from the original denial of certiorari, arguing that the court should use the opportunity to resolve confusion over its decision in Boumediene v. Bush granting federal courts the power to review habeas petitions brought by “enemy combatants.”
Last April, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Noriega’s claim was precluded by § 5 of the Military Commission Act of 2006, which the government argued “codifie the principle that the Geneva Conventionsre not judicially enforceable by private parties.” Noriega was challenging a district court’s August 2007 ruling that allows him to be extradited to France. He is wanted in France on charges of money laundering through French banks. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia to 10 years in jail in 1999, but France has agreed to hold a new trial if he is extradited.

[JURIST] The Bangladesh Cabinet on Monday ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ratification will not aid in the nation’s pending war crimes trials for the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan, as the ICC can only prosecute crimes that took place on or after the date the statute took effect in 2002. However, ratification of the statute requires countries to update their own laws to reflect the provisions of the statute. Bangladesh’s 1971 war crimes trials will take place under the recently amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
Last month, the Bangladeshi government announced that the prosecutors and investigators for the country’s war crimes tribunal should be appointed in March. The tribunal will be used to conduct fair and transparent trials for those accused of war crimes during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. In July, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to improve war crimes laws to bring justice to victims of the 1971 war. Last April, the UN agreed to advise the Bangladeshi government on the organization and operation of the tribunal.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a case involving a Massachusetts law prohibiting people from protesting directly outside of abortion clinics. Lawyers for the petitioners, parties “who regularly engage in pro-life counseling” outside clinics, were appealing a July ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which held that the law, which creates a 35-foot buffer zone around entrances and exits of reproductive health clinics, was a reasonable response to a significant threat to public safety. Opponents of the law say that it violates freedom of speech while supporters say that it is necessary to ensure public safety and access to abortion clinics. The justices did not comment on the reason for denying certiorari, but the court may have found it unnecessary to review the law, when several portions of a nearly identical law were upheld in 1994 in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center.
Threats against abortion clinics and employees have been a longstanding concern, and the US courts of appeal have come to differing conclusions on the constitutionality of “buffer zone” laws meant to protect clinic patients and employees. In November, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that created a layered zone structure to prevent protesters from gathering outside abortion facilities. US Attorney General Eric Holder enlisted the US Marshall Service last June to increase protection for at-risk people and facilities following the shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller. Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment protected an anti-abortion group’s right to display graphic pictures of early-term aborted fetuses outside of a California middle school.

[JURIST] The Turkish government on Monday unveiled a controversial new reform bill proposing amendments to 22 articles of the Turkish Constitution in hopes of making the government more democratic and strengthening the country’s bid to join the European Union (EU). The proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues, including the judicial system, women’s rights, and collective bargaining for civil servants. The major reforms proposed include an amendment that would make party closures more difficult and an amendment to restructure the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HYSK) and the Constitutional Court. Also included is an amendment to Article 15, which bans the prosecution of the 1980 coup leaders. The reform movement, led by Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), has been challenged by the opposition party Republican People’s Party (CHP). The bill will now go before Parliament, where it must be approved by two-thirds of the 550 members to become law.
Earlier this month, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that the reform package with proposed constitutional changes would be submitted the EU by the end of March, following a meeting of the EU Reform Watch Group. The Watch Group, overseen by Minister and Chief EU Negotiator Egemen Bagis, was created to guide Turkey’s accession to the EU. Turkey has faced several obstacles as it works toward membership in the EU, including its human rights record, its stance towards political parties, and tension between the AKP and the military. Last year, the Constitutional Court of Turkey voted to ban the Democratic Society Party (DTP) after finding the party had contacts with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a separatist, designated terrorist group. Erdogan has sought to end Turkey’s 25-year conflict with the PKK, which has been a major impediment to Turkey’s bid to join the EU.

[JURIST] Kazakhstan’s government is failing to curb torture by law enforcement officers, according a report released Monday by Amnesty International (AI). The report, which tracks Kazakhstan’s progress in the area of human rights from the period of its adoption of the Convention Against Torture, is critical of several practices that seem to run counter to the goals of that convention. Under Kazakh law, all detentions must be registered within a three-hour time period in order to keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. AI claims that this law is rarely enforced, and most torture allegations arise from the practice of unacknowledged detentions. AI also expressed concern about the scorecard nature of assessing judges, which places pressure on judges to maintain a high conviction rate and makes them less likely to acquit or order greater investigation of allegations of torture. According to the report:
despite the good intentions shown by the measures noted above and the extensive education, reform and training programmes for law enforcement forces and the judiciary often run in conjunction and in cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international governmental organizations (IGOs), it has become evident that torture or other ill-treatment of individuals deprived of their liberty, whether formally detained or in de facto unacknowledged detention, continue to be routinely used.The report concluded with a series of recommendations, including the formation of an independent agency to assess allegations of abuse at the hands of police.Kazakhstan has come under increased scrutiny as the first former Soviet republic to chair the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a role it assumed at the beginning of 2010. In February, Kazakh NGOs asked the UN Human Rights Council to address instances of torture and the use unlawful evidence obtained through torture during trial. In August, Reporters Without Borders condemned a Kazakh high court decision upholding the conviction of a journalist charged with publishing state secrets. In December, Human Rights Watch said that the former Soviet nation is falling short on reforms promised in advance of their assumption of the OSCE chairmanship.

[JURIST] Nepalese rights groups on Sunday praised two recent judgments by the District Court in Baitadi against caste-based discrimination. Earlier this month, the court sentenced a man accused of assaulting the father of the groom during a July 2009 wedding for practicing “rituals reserved for high-caste communities” to one year in prison and a fine of 5,000 rupees. In a similar decision upheld by the Kanchanpur Appellate Court in August, the Baitadi District Court sentenced the main defendant accused of physically assaulting 12 Dalits during a festival to two years imprisonment and a fine of 25,000 rupees. Article 14 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal prohibits racial discrimination on the basis of caste and sets grounds for punishment, entitling victims to compensation. The court cited the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination and stated that caste supremacy discrimination is “morally unacceptable, socially unjust and dangerous.” The UN human rights office in Nepal called the judgments an important step in Nepal’s fight against discrimination. The National Dalit Commission (NDC), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal), urged authorities to enforce both sentences and promote awareness of caste-based discrimination.
In addition to caste-based discrimination, Nepal has a history of human rights abuses stemming from the country’s internal conflict. Last year, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the peace process in Nepal could be hampered by “impunity for human rights abuses,” citing the failure of Nepal’s commissions on disappearances and truth and reconciliation to ensure justice for victims of abuse committed during the country’s civil war. The decade-long Maoist guerrilla insurgency that left more than 13,000 people dead ended in late 2006 when the Nepalese government signed a peace agreement that established the Nepalese Constituent Assembly (CA). The CA was elected in April of 2008 and voted to abolish the monarchy.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to rule in the case known as Kiyemba II, in which the court was asked to consider issues surrounding the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Lawyers for four Chinese Muslim Uighurs detained at Guantanamo were appealing an April ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, which held that US courts cannot prevent the government from transferring Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries on the grounds that detainees may face prosecution or torture in the foreign country. The case is separate from a case the court remanded to the DC circuit court earlier this month, known as Kiyemba I.
Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in four cases. In Connick v. Thompson, the court will consider whether imposing failure-to-train liability on a district attorney’s office for a single Brady violation contravenes the rigorous culpability and causation standards or undermines prosecutors’ absolute immunity. Prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence in violation of defendant John Thompson’s rights under Brady v. Maryland. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered a judgment in favor of Thompson, and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a new trial.In Belleque v. Moore, the court will consider whether the standard set forth in Arizona v. Fulminante – that the erroneous admission of a coerced confession at the trial is not harmless – applies if a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney’s decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea. If the standard applies, the court will then have to consider whether the application is “clearly established” under federal law. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Fulminante standard should apply.In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the court will consider whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an oral complaint is not protect and later denied a motion for a rehearing by the full court.In Flores-Villar v. United States, the court will consider whether its decision in Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis. Ruben Flores-Villar raised a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge challenge to two former sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1401(a)(7) and 8 USC § 1409, which impose a five-year residence requirement, after the age of 14, on US citizen fathers, but not on US citizen mothers, before they may transmit citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad to a non-citizen. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the provisions survive intermediate scrutiny.

[JURIST] Human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty, and Reprieve on Monday joined with members of British parliament in calling for an inquiry into the UK role in torture and rendition during the war on terror. In an open letter, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition demanded British officials conduct a public hearing on the role played by UK intelligence agencies and armed forces in the alleged torture and rendition of terror suspects. In the letter, the group suggests a lack of governmental transparency on the issue, saying “he public should not have to rely on occasional speeches and lengthy judicial cases to discover the truth about such a serious issue.”
The letter comes days after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown failed to deliver a promised public revision of guidelines given to UK intelligence officers for the treatment of detainees. Brown faces growing scrutiny of UK detainee procedures amid allegations from former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohammed that British intelligence officials were involved in his torture in Morocco. In February, Reprieve initiated a lawsuit against the UK government over its alleged torture of detainees, claiming that its unwillingess to disclose detainee policies suggests that they permit illegal torture.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives on Sunday voted 219 – 212 to approve a health care reform bill passed by the Senate in December, sending it to President Barack Obama for final approval. The bill, HR 3590 was passed after two hours of debate Sunday evening, gaining no Republican support. The bill’s passage was quickly followed by the passage of a second bill by a margin of 220 – 211, which is aimed at reconciling the Senate bill with that passed by the House in November and the proposal released by the White House earlier this month. The reconciliation bill is expected to be passed by Senate Democrats using the budget reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster. Obama said that the bill represents a “victory for the American people”:oday’s vote answers the prayers of every American who has hoped deeply for something to be done about a health care system that works for insurance companies, but not for ordinary people. For most Americans, this debate has never been about abstractions, the fight between right and left, Republican and Democrat – it’s always been about something far more personal. … They are why we committed ourselves to this cause. … a victory for common sense.During floor debate Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) urged defeat of the bill, saying that it is “not what the American people need.” Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. … We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. … In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land.The bill’s passage comes as the climax to over a year of debate in Congress, and is a centerpiece of Obama’s domestic agenda. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the reconciliation bill will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured, at a cost of $940 billion over a decade, and will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the same period and $1.2 trillion in the following decade. Boehner disputes these figures, saying that the CBO scoring process is predicated on a “fallacy.”The Senate passed its version of the health care reform bill in December in a 60-39 vote that split down party lines. Senate Republicans vowed to continue to fight to amend the bill, arguing that it is too expensive and would violate personal rights by compelling people to buy health insurance. The House of Representatives approved its initial version of the legislation in November. Last week, Idaho Governor CL “Butch” Otter (R) became the first governor to sign a bill into state law banning any federal mandate for individuals to have health insurance. The Idaho Health Freedom Act orders the state attorney general to file a lawsuit against the national government over any law making health insurance mandatory. Two weeks ago, the Virginia General Assembly passed a similar bill. The bill, called the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, says that no individual shall be held liable if they refuse to sign up for health care. Governor Robert McDonnell (R) has said that he will sign the bill into law. About 30 other states are working on similar measures to negate the federal mandate for health insurance.

[JURIST] Iraqi election officials on Sunday rejected allegations of fraud and calls for a recount of the ballots from the March 7 parliamentary election. Despite the demands for a recount Saturday by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which described the recount as necessary “to preserve political stability and stave off … the resurgence of violence,” an Independent High Election Commission (IHEC) official stated that a total recount of the ballots would not be feasible, and is not necessary, due to checks against fraud. Calls for a recount come amid a close election result between Maliki’s Shi’ite dominated State of Law coalition, and their primary rival, former prime minister Iyad Allawi and his cross-sectarian Iraqiya coalition. With 95 percent of the vote counted on Sunday, Allawi maintained a lead of around 11,000 votes over Maliki, with the full vote count to be announced Friday. In response to the recount demands, an Iraqiya spokesperson stated that a recount would delay the election results for months, negatively affecting the security situation. The close election result has prompted observers to predict that neither party will gain a majority of the 325-seat parliament, leading to possibly months of negotiations to form a government. Also on Sunday, a protest broke out in support of Maliki’s recount demands in the city of Najaf, where 300 demonstrators gathered near the provincial government building.
The IHEC on Friday dismissed allegations of election fraud from a member of the European Parliament. On Wednesday, The State of Law coalition first asked the IHEC for a recount, alleging fraud. State of Law spokesperson Ali Al Adib claimed that the ballots were manipulated by the manager of an electronic counting center who is allegedly linked to Iraqiya. The allegations came after Iraqiya began to take a slight lead in a partial vote count released earlier this week. The IHEC said that there was no evidence to back up the allegations. The fraud allegations are the latest in a series of problems plaguing the elections. Last month, an Iraqi appeals panel ruled that 28 of the 500 candidates previously banned due to allegations of ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party could stand in the election. The initial ban was characterized by the Iraqi government as illegal, and was reversed when the panel acknowledged that it did not have to rule on all 500 candidates at once.

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank “illegal,” during a press conference Saturday. The statement comes two weeks after Israel announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians hope to establish the capital of their future state. Ban said:
The world has condemned Israel’s settlement expansion plans in East Jerusalem. Let us be clear, all settlement activities illegal anywhere in Occupied Territory, the Quartet has reaffirmed that position. I’m also concerned about actions in Hebron, Jerusalem, and Israel. I urge all parties to respect sensitives and promote calm. We can and must find a way for Jerusalem to emerge from negotiations as the capital of two states with arrangements for holy sites acceptable to all.During the press conference, in which Ban was joined by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Ban voiced his support for Fayyad’s plans to build the institutions of an independent state by 2011, and called for the immediate resumption of peace talks to result in an independent Palestinian state within two years, echoing a statement released by the Quartet on the Middle East Friday. The Quartet, a group comprising the US, European Union, UN, and Russia, dedicated to mediating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, urged the Israeli government to “freeze all settlement activity … and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem.” On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that construction in East Jerusalem would not be restricted despite international criticism and pressure from the US. Two weeks ago, indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians were postponed after the Israeli Interior Ministry announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. The announcement coincided with a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden to promote the talks, touching off a diplomatic row between the two nations. Israeli activity in the West Bank has remained a controversial issue, and has been deemed to violate international law on several occasions. In June 2008, Ban asserted that Israeli plans to expand settlements in the West Bank violated international law. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were held to be illegal under international law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004. Shortly after construction of the border wall began in the West Bank in 2002, the ICJ held that it also violated international law, amounting to a “de facto annexation.”

[JURIST] A New York state appeals court ruled Thursday that the state’s courts have jurisdiction to hear requests to annul civil unions performed in other states. The Third Judicial Department Appellate Division reversed a 2008 Schenectady County Supreme Court decision, citing multiple protections New York affords to same-sex partnerships as sufficient to establish competency despite the state lacking its own civil union law:Here, while New York has not created a specific mechanism for dissolution of a civil union validly entered into in another state, neither has it exercised its power, by statute or other legislative enactment, to prohibit an action for dissolution of a civil union. Since Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action has not been proscribed, and this matter involves a dispute for which “adequate relief by means of an existing form of action isavailable to the plaintiff,” Supreme Court is competent to adjudicate the case.The case involved a same-sex New York couple that that entered into a civil union in Vermont. Vermont, however, was unable to provide relief since it requires at least one party to be a resident of the state for at least one year.
The New York Senate rejected legislation in December that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The bill, introduced to the state legislature in April, passed in the General Assembly by a margin of 89-52 in May. The bill was again passed by the lower body in anticipation of the senate vote, as required by state law. New York, however, is currently one of the few US jurisdictions to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

[JURIST] Spain should repeal its 1977 amnesty law that bars investigation and prosecution of crimes committed under the Franco regime rather than “prosecuting a judge seeking accountability for past abuses,” Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Friday. HRW called for Spain to comply with the 2008 recommendation from the UN Human Rights Committee to end the amnesty law. HRW asserts that the criminal investigation and pending judicial proceedings against Spanish National Court judge Baltasar Garzon are at odds with the very principles that Garzon helped to enforce in prosecuting human rights abuses abroad. According to HRW Americas director Jose Manuel Vivanco, “Spanish courts have routinely failed to investigate allegations of horrendous crimes of the past, but are being surprisingly active in prosecuting a judge who tried to push for accountability.”
Garzon is under judicial scrutiny for ordering an investigation in September 2008 in response to a complaint by the Organization for Restoring Historical Memory that the Franco regime carried out systematic killings and enforced disappearances of opponents. Last month, a Spanish Supreme Court judge rejected Garzon’s motion to dismiss the complaint originally lodged by Manos Limpias, a far-right leaning advocacy organization. The judge ruled that Garzon may have exceeded his jurisdictional authority when he launched an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed under Francisco Franco and during the Spanish Civil War. Garzon maintains that he acted within the bounds of the law, basing his jurisdiction determination on the National Court’s competence over crimes against the government and high authorities of the state. Garzon has petitioned the Spanish Supreme Court to allow him to continue in his duties during the investigation.