Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court on Tuesday overturned a law requiring telecommunications providers to store information on telephone calls, e-mails, and Internet use for six months for use in possible terrorism investigations, citing privacy issues. The court found that Section 113 of the Telecommunications Act violates the privacy of German citizens and that the law lacks the controls to ensure the data is secure and properly utilized. The court also ruled that all stored data must be immediately deleted. The law was passed in response to a 2006 European Union (EU) directive requiring the retention of telephone and e-mail records for use in terrorism investigations. The court, however, stated that the German law exceeded the requirements put forth by the EU. The law has been widely criticized in Germany, with nearly 35,000 Germans filing complaints regarding the law with the court.
The balancing of telecommunications monitoring for security purposes and privacy concerns has been a struggle post 9/11 in both Europe and the US. In January, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are not required to confirm or deny the existence of electronic surveillance records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In April, the DOJ announced that it had limited the NSA’s electronic surveillance, but maintained that the information being received was still important. In 2006, it was revealed that the NSA was collecting phone records from major telephone companies to study the calling patterns of millions of Americans in an effort to detect terrorist activity.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Tuesday urged Egypt to investigate the shootings of 60 unarmed migrants since July 2007 on the Egyptian side of the Egypt-Israeli border. The majority of those killed have been Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Sudanese. Pillay stated that “the sheer number of victims suggests that at least some Egyptian security officials have been operating a shoot-to-kill policy. It is unlikely that so many killings would occur otherwise. Sixty killings can hardly be an accident.” In February, Amnesty International (AI) also urged Egypt to take immediate action to quell the excessive force used by its border police and to investigate the policies that encourage such force.
In January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the construction of 70 miles of fence along Israel’s border with Egypt in the Sinai in order to combat terrorism and illegal immigration. In explaining the purpose for the barrier, which has an estimated cost of more than $400 million USD, Netanyahu explained that his decision was a strategic move “to ensure the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel.” And, that “Israel will remain open to war refugees but we cannot allow thousands of illegal workers to infiltrate into Israel via the southern border and flood our country.” Israeli police estimate that 100 to 200 African migrants enter the country illegally every week from Egypt, mainly in search of employment. The influx of non-Jewish migrants into Israel has caused unease among Jewish Israelis, a group which comprises three-fourths of the Israeli population and wants to maintain the country as the world’s only Jewish-majority state.

[JURIST] Several human rights groups and anti-mine activists on Monday urged the US to join the Mine Ban Treaty, marking the eleventh anniversary of the treaty’s status as binding international law. Despite initial statements from the US State Department in November that the US would be maintaining its current policy, the US government announced in its first appearance at the December convention of states party to the Mine Ban Treaty that the Obama administration has undertaken a review of current US landmine policy. Human Rights Watch Arms Division Director Steve Goose emphasized the importance of the US signing onto the treaty:
The humanitarian and political benefits would be huge, and it would not tie the hands of the US military. Some ask how the US can join when it is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but both those nations are members of the treaty and are already obliged to reject any use of antipersonnel mines.The US is one of only two countries in the western hemisphere that is not a party to the treaty, which currently has 156 signatories worldwide. The US is also the largest financial supporter of mine clearance programs. In 2004, the Bush administration geared US policy away from signing the mine treaty and substituted usage of persistent mines with non-persistent mines. The Clinton administration did not sign the Mine Ban Treaty, but in 1998 issued Presidential Decision Directive 64, instructing the US military to explore alternate weapons and outlining US commitment to sign the treaty by 2006. The Mine Ban Treaty opened for signature in December 1997, and signatory countries ban the use of anti-personnel mines, destroy stockpiles, and take measures towards clearing mines, as well as help countries with fewer resources clear mines and give assistance to victims.

[JURIST] The Paris Criminal Court on Monday asked the highest court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, to determine the constitutionality of police custody under article 63-4 of the code of criminal procedure. The request follows Monday’s entry into force of a constitutional amendment allowing individuals indirectly to seek review before the French Constitutional Council by appealing to the highest courts of the country. The Court of Cassation will have three months to decide whether the question should be submitted to the Constitutional Council. The application was initiated by an association of Paris bar lawyers, which has called for lawyers around France to follow its lead in order to pressure the government to reform the criminal procedure. French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie will present a reform project to the unions representing judges and lawyers on Tuesday.
The campaign for reform has gained momentum over the past few months as a result of recent decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in Salduz v. Turkey, Mooren v. Germany, Koslenik v. Ukraine, which called a lack of safeguards during police custody a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. French lawyers and human rights groups have demanded that all suspects in police custody be given the right to see a lawyer immediately and access to a lawyer during interrogation, as well as be informed of their right to remain silent.

[JURIST] UK police on Monday arrested former Bosnian vice president Ejup Ganic for war crimes in connection with a 1992 attack against Serbian soldiers. Ganic, vice president during the outset of the 1992-1995 Bosnian civil war, was arrested by the Scotland Yard Extradition Unit at a London airport on the day he was to return to Bosnia. The arrest was carried out on a Serbian provisional extradition warrant for conspiracy to murder and killing wounded soldiers, in breach of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Ganic has been detained pending the completion of Serbia’s extradition request, which must be completed within the next 45 days. Serbian Justice Minister Snezana Malovic said she will send an extradition request on Tuesday. Bosnian authorities have expressed outrage over the arrest and view the move as an affront to Bosnian sovereignty that endangers relations with Serbia.
Ganic is the highest ranking official among 19 for whom Serbia has issued an arrest warrant in connection with the Dobrovoljacka Street incident at the onset of the Bosnian conflict. Serbian authorities maintain that Serbian soldiers were attacked by Bosnian forces as they were leaving Sarajevo, resulting in 42 deaths and more than 70 wounded soldiers. Bosnian authorities dismiss Serbian claims surrounding the incident on the grounds that they were defending their own territory and that Serbia is undermining procedures in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in three cases, including the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling. In Skilling v. United States, the court heard arguments on whether the federal honest services fraud statute is unconstitutionally vague. The court also heard arguments on whether and to what extent the government must rebut the presumption of jury prejudice, which arose because of pretrial publicity and community impact of the alleged conduct. Skilling was convicted in 2006 of 19 counts of conspiracy, insider trading, and securities fraud and is currently serving a 24-year sentence. In February 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing after a three-judge panel upheld Skilling’s previous convictions and ordered him to be resentenced due to error in the lower court. Counsel for Skilling opened his arguments by stating:the court of appeals was correct in unanimously concluding that this was one of the very rare cases in which, because of the degree of passion and prejudice in the community, the process of voir dire cannot be relied upon to adequately ferret out and identify unduly biased jurors.Counsel for the US argued that the trial judge had an adequately rigorous process for selecting jurors.
In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the court heard arguments on whether a police officer can non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate after the defendant has heard his Miranda rights but has not invoked or waived them. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the defendant’s nearly three-hour silence in response to questioning constituted a desire not to waive his rights and that the state failed to satisfy its heavy burden of showing such a waiver took place. Counsel for the petitioner argued:The Michigan courts here did not unreasonably conclude that Mr. Thompkins had impliedly waived his rights where he expressly acknowledged his rights under – from his form after having read out loud from that form, he participated in a limited fashion during the interview.Counsel for the respondent argued that, “the right to remain silent, we don’t require that it be asserted. It is a presumption. And that presumption remains.”In Holland v. Florida, the court heard arguments on whether “gross negligence” by a state-appointed defense attorney in a death penalty case provides a basis for extending the time to file a federal habeas challenge, in a case where the habeas plea was filed late despite repeated instructions from the client. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against extending time to file the challenge. Counsel for the petitioner Albert Holland argued that a line should be drawn between mere negligence and gross negligence. Counsel for the petition argued that negligence of any degree should not result in a tolling of the statute.

[JURIST] A Spanish National Court judge on Monday accused the Venezuelan government of aiding two rebel groups in a plot to assassinate members of the Colombian government in Spain. Judge Eloy Velasco charged six members of the Basque separatist group ETA and seven members of the Colombian rebel group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) with subverting the constitutional order by collaborating to assassinate Colombian officials, including President Alvaro Uribe and his predecessor Andres Pastrana. The indictment accuses Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his administration with assisting the collaboration. Velasco found that Arturo Cubillas Fontan, former director of the Venezuelan Ministry of Agriculture, served as a key link between the groups, introducing members of ETA to FARC personal in Venezuela. A Spanish magistrate has ordered the Colombian and Venezuela governments to surrender the accused individuals to Spain.
Both ETA and FARC are listed as terrorist organizations in the EU and the US. In January, a Spanish judge found that ETA attempted to assassinate former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in 2001 with a rocket launcher. In April, alleged ETA leader Jurdan Martitegi Lizaso was arrested in France, and a Spanish judge charged him with murder for a May 2008 car bombing that killed a Spanish policeman. In 2008, Chavez denounced a Colombian attack on a FARC outpost based in Ecuador as a “war crime.” Colombia retaliated stating that Chavez was providing financing and that Columbia would seek to have Chavez charged before the International Criminal Court for supporting the “genocide” of Colombian citizens by leftist militants.

[JURIST] An international court to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by communist regimes should be created by the European Union (EU), the participants of the Prague Crimes of the Communist Regime Conference said in a joint statement Friday. The participants in the conference, organized by the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, said that the new court should be established because such crimes, which are not subject to a statute of limitations under international law, fall outside the jurisdiction of current international courts. The statement also characterized the prosecution of communist crimes over the past 20 years as “extremely unsatisfactory.” The three-day conference, attended mostly by government officials from eastern and central Europe, focused on current communist regimes and their threat to democracy. In the statement, the participants also called for the erection of a memorial to the victims of communism in Europe and the dedication of European-wide Day of Remembrance of the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes on August 23.
Last year, prosecutors from the five major international tribunals called on member states “to seriously consider the adoption of a convention on the Suppression and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity.” The statement came at the end of a three-day convention and reiterated the need to fight against impunity for perpetrators of serious international crimes. Representatives from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) attended the colloquium, which was held in Rwanda and hosted by the ICTR. The statement, which was unanimously adopted by the participants, also called on states to ensure their legal systems can effectively prosecute international crimes, to provide full cooperation to the all international criminal tribunals, and to become a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, if they have not already done so.

[JURIST] The official Iranian press supervisory body on Monday banned reformist daily newspaper Etemaad and moderate weekly magazine Iran Dokht. Etemad is known as one of the few reformist newspapers that continued publishing after the June presidential election. Iran Dokht has ties to defeated opposition presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi. The publications’ licenses were revoked pursuant to Article 6 of the Press Law, which prohibits print media from publishing news items that “violate Islamic principles and codes and public rights.”
On Sunday, six journalists were released from a Tehran prison, while many others remain incarcerated for their reformist views. In February, a joint US-EU statement condemned Iranian action against protesters and other critics of government policy. The Iranian government has responded strongly to opposition following June’s disputed elections, prompting additional criticism from rights groups and advocacy organizations. Amnesty International (AI) has labeled post-election rights abuses in Iran as some of the worst in the past 20 years.

[JURIST] The Turkish government will submit a European Union (EU) reform package with proposed constitutional changes to Parliament by the end of March, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Sunday, following a meeting of the EU Reform Watch Group. The Watch Group, overseen by Minister and Chief EU Negotiator Egemen Bag?s, was created to guide Turkey’s accession to the EU. Erdogan said that the amendments, necessary for continuing EU negotiations, would focus on judicial reform. Other areas of potential reform include the formation of an ombudsman’s office and the election system in Turkey, including political parties. Erdogan condemned opposition parties and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) for opposing a constitutional amendment, and said the government will seek a public referendum if an agreement for the constitutional amendments cannot be reached.
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 Turkey’s ruling Justice Development Party (AKP) and the military. In December, 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. In May, the EC-Turkey Association Council urged Turkey to improve its human rights record. Last year, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso addressed the Turkish parliament and applauded the government’s efforts to reform a controversial provision of the Turkish penal code but stressed that further efforts would be necessary.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to reconsider the case of five Chinese Muslim Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court originally granted certiorari in Kiyemba v. Obama to determine whether it is within the power of the judicial branch to order the release of detainees into the US. The court ordered the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the fact that each of the remaining Uighurs has received an offer of resettlement by another country. In a brief order, the court wrote:This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so.
Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.The order comes after the court asked the Obama administration and lawyers for the Uighurs to submit supplemental briefs explaining how the resettlement offers would affect the case.Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in Michigan v. Bryant, in which the court will decide whether preliminary inquiries of a wounded citizen concerning the perpetrator and circumstances of the shooting are non-testimonial, rendering them admissible in court. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the “primary purpose of the interrogation to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution,” concluding that the statements constituted inadmissible testimonial hearsay.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed habeas corpus petitions on behalf of four detainees held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The first petition, filed Friday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the detention of Haji Abdul Wahid, a 61-year-old government employee, and his nephew Zia-ur-Rahman, a food merchant, who were imprisoned after being taken from their homes by the US military in a neighborhood sweep. The second petition, also filed Friday, challenges the detention of Samiullah Jalatzai, who was arrested without explanation at his workplace, and his brother Sibghatullah Jalatzai, who was a US military translator prior to his detention. All four men have been held at Bagram for over a year, but the ACLU claims 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. The petitions ask that the men be informed of why they are detained, be permitted to speak with a lawyer, and be given a legitimate forum to challenge the legality of their detention. Staff attorney for the ACLU National Security Project Melissa Goodman said that, “ocking up people who were picked up far from any battlefield for years without telling them why, without giving them access to lawyers and without giving them a real chance to contest the evidence against them is unlawful and un-American.”
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 in September. However, much of the vital information, including their citizenship, how long they had been held, in what country they were captured, and the circumstances of their capture, was redacted. Also in January, Afghan officials signed a memorandum of understanding to delineate the process under which they will eventually take over the Bagram detention facility. The transfer of responsibility is expected within six months. Prisoners at Bagram have launched previous habeas corpus challenges in US courts but thus far have been less successful than those held at Guantanamo Bay.

[JURIST] A Zimbabwean law requiring all foreign-owned companies operating in the country to transfer a majority share to local owners went into effect Monday. The Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment Act requires all companies worth more than USD $500,000 to submit information on the racial makeup of their shareholders and a plan for the transfer of a 51 percent ownership to native black Zimbabweans within 45 days. These plans must be enacted within five years, with noncompliance resulting in five years imprisonment. The law was passed by the Parliament of Zimbabwe in 2007 when it was still dominated by the Zanu-PF party of President Robert Mugabe, but was published only last month. The reform scheme has faced criticism for its timing in the wake of a major economic crisis in which the country faced hyperinflation and food shortages. Mugabe, at celebrations marking his eighty-sixth birthday Saturday, defended the law, comparing it with the controversial land reform program that was initiated in 2000, and saying that a country’s resources should benefit its indigenous population. Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, in a unity government with Mugabe after the contentious 2008 presidential election, opposed the enforcement of the law, claiming that it was void because it was not debated by the unity cabinet. In January, the Zimbabwe High Court ruled that it is not bound by a decision of the Southern Africa Development Community Tribunal that ordered the state to halt the land reform program for its discriminatory nature. Mugabe faced harsh criticism for the program, which, since 2000, has sought to redistribute white-owned land among the nation’s indigenous farmers. In February 2006, the Zimbabwean land minister said that there are no white farmers operating legally in Zimbabwe. The government has appropriated some 4,000 farms through the program, and has traditionally argued that any compensation owed white farmers should be paid by the British government, Zimbabwe’s former colonizer. Many observers attributed Zimbabwe’s disastrous economic circumstances, including an inflation rate exceeding 231,000,000 percent, to the policy, as previously productive farms become barren under new inexperienced owners.

[JURIST] Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic appeared before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Monday to defend himself against charges related to war crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. Karadzic began his opening statement by denying any plan to expel Muslims from Serbia, and by blaming Muslims and Western countries for triggering the Bosnian civil war. Karadzic is defending himself against 11 counts including genocide and murder, after initially threatening to boycott the trial and having standby counsel appointed by the ICTY. He is scheduled to continue with his opening statements on Tuesday, with the prosecution set to call its first witness on Wednesday. He faces a sentence of life in prison if convicted.
The resumption of Karadzic’s trial comes after a series appeals by the defense, which have been viewed as a way for Karadzic to delay the legal process. Last month, Karadzic appeared before the ICTY seeking access to documents he claimed showed evidence of weapons smuggling to Bosnian Muslims. Also last month, the ICTY dismissed Karadzic’s appeal against the imposition of his court-appointed lawyer. In December, the Trial Chamber rejected Karadzic’s motion challenging the legitimacy of the court. The ICTY began Karadzic’s trial in absentia in October after Karadzic failed to appear in court. The ICTY has also repeatedly rejected Karadzic’s argument that he should be immune from trial based on an alleged agreement with former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke. In June, the ICTY said that Karadzic’s trial, scheduled to be the tribunal’s last, is expected to conclude in early 2012.

[JURIST] Former Mozambican Transportation Minister Antonio Munguambe was sentenced to twenty years in prison on Saturday for his involvement in the embezzlement of millions of dollars from a publicly owned company. The trial was the largest corruption proceeding brought in Mozambique since the country achieved independence from Portugal in 1975. Judge Dimas Marroa of Maputo City Court said that he was making an example of the defendants in sentencing Munguambe along with four others for the theft of USD$1.7 million from the Mozambican Airport Company (ADM) during Munguambe’s tenure in office between 2005 and 2008. Marroa cited evidence that Munguambe was aware of the theft and knowingly benefited from it, using the money to purchase a luxury car and to send his children to school in South Africa, rejecting claims by his defense attorney that he had no criminal intention. Antonio Bulande, Munguambe’s assistant in the ministry was sentenced to two years for drawing a salary from a subsidiary of ADM under a fake name and using $15,000 to pay for his wedding. The other defendants were former officers of ADM, including former CEO Diodino Cambaza, who was sentenced to twenty-two years and finance director Antenor Pereira, receiving twenty years. The head of a subsidiary company, Deolinda Matos, was sentenced to two years and fifteen days after agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors. Marroa also ruled that the five had to reimburse ADM for the money they had taken. They have five days to appeal their convictions.
The trial began in November 2009 as part of a larger initiative of the Mozambican government to reduce corruption in the government. In 2009, Mozambique’s Central Office for the Fight Against Corruption and regional attorney’s offices investigated 403 cases of corruption. Transparency International ranks Mozambique among the most corrupt in the world. Munguambe was removed from office by President Armando Guebuza in 2008 after violent riots in Maputo sparked by an increase in the fares for bus travel, a primary source of transportation in the capital. Soon after, he and the four others were charged by prosecutors with the theft of public funds, for the abuse of functions, for making false statements, and for paying undue remunerations.

[JURIST] The corruption trial of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was adjourned for a month on Saturday, after the court rejected the defendant’s request to suspend the trial. A court in Milan ruled that it could not wait for the Court of Cassation to issue its opinion in the related prosecution of David Mills, as Berlusconi’s defense requested, which could take as long as two or three months. Instead, the court set the next hearing for March 26. Berlusconi, also facing another trial for tax fraud, castigated members of the judiciary on Friday, comparing them to communists and the Taliban, and accused them of trying to bring down his government. He also claimed that prosecutors had usurped sovereignty from the people. The head of the National Association of Magistrates later characterized Berlusconi’s statements as intolerable aggression, prompting President Giorgio Napolitano to call for calm. Also on Saturday, an estimated 200,000 protesters rallied against Berlusconi in central Rome, accusing him of trying to evade the law and undermine the Italian legal system.
On Thurday, the Court of Cassation threw out the conviction against Mills, citing a lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations. Mills was appealing his conviction and four and a half year sentence for accepting a $600,000 bribe from Berlusconi in exchange for providing favorable testimony at two of his previous trials. The charges against Berlusconi for the alleged bribe will expire next year. The Italian Chamber of Deputies approved a bill earlier this month that would allow cabinet ministers, including Berlusconi, to postpone criminal proceedings against them for up to 18 months on the grounds that they would interfere with official duties. The legislation is to be considered by the Senate on March 9. The Senate approved a bill in January that would shorten the trial and appeals process, putting strict time limits on its duration. Because of the bill’s retroactive effect, two pending corruption cases against Berlusconi would be automatically dismissed. In October, Italy’s Constitutional Court struck down a law granting immunity to the Prime Minister and four others, allowing charges of corruption to be reinstated. The Italian premier is facing two separate trials on charges of corruption and bribery and could face a third corruption trial based on new information that recently surfaced, according to reports.

[JURIST] The Interior Ministry of Spain said Sunday that it has taken into custody the suspected leader of the Basque separatist group ETA, along with two other people who are believed to be senior members of the group. Ibon Gogeascoechea Arronategui and the two others were arrested in the French village of Cahan, after a long surveillance operation by Spain and France. In a nationally televised news conference, Spanish Interior Minister Alferdo Perez Rubalcaba said that the men were planning to enter Spain with the “worst intentions.” Gogeascoechea has been sought since 1997 for his role in planting explosives around the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao which was believed to be an assassination attempt on King Juan Carlos. The two other men – Beinat Aguinalde Ugartemendia, and Gergorio Jimenez Morales – are wanted for separate assassinations that took place in 2008.
Spain has made progress in its attempts to limit ETA influence in the past few years. In January Spanish Judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska ruled that ETA had tried three times to assassinate former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in 2001 but had failed. Grande-Marlaska detailed the three assassination attempts as part of a description of the alleged crimes of ETA leader Pedro Maria Olano Zabala, who was arrested in the Basque region earlier that month. In September, accused ETA leader Mikel Garikoitz Aspiazu Rubina refused to make any statement during hearings before the Spanish National Court. In June, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld Spain’s ban of Basque political groups Batasuna and Herri Batasuna for their alleged ties to ETA. In April, alleged ETA leader Jurdan Martitegi Lizaso was arrested in France, and a Spanish judge charged him with murder for a May 2008 car bombing that killed a Spanish policeman.

[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Colombia voted 7-2 Friday to strike down as unconstitutional a law that would have allowed a referendum to amend the Colombian Constitution to enable current President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third term. The court’s decision was based on grave violations of principles of democratic participation and transparency that the court said took place during the campaign for the law. Among the irregularities cited by the court were flagrant excesses in campaign finance donations and the improper delegation of campaign funding to a civil organization that spent up to six times more than the statutory limit imposed by the National Electoral Council. Irregularities in the legislative process included a discrepancy between the text of the law that would have been voted on and the version approved by the Colombian Congress, deficient public notice on the legislative vote, and voting rendered inappropriate due to legislators changing their political affiliation to approve the law. The decision may not be appealed. Uribe has enjoyed widespread support in recent polls, but a range of civic groups have welcomed the court’s decision.
In September, the Colombian House of Representatives voted to approve the bill. The Colombian Senate had approved a similar proposal in May. Uribe was elected to a second term in 2006 after a similar referendum, approved by Congress in December 2004 and the Constitutional Court in October 2005, lifted the original one-term limit. In June 2008, the Colombian Supreme Court ruled that a legal inquiry should be held into the election after it found that a legislator had been bribed to help push through the constitutional changes. Uribe had called for the referendum to decide on the election in response to the high court’s ruling.

[JURIST] Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy was accused in a new lawsuit filed Friday in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court by the Cambodian government of forging and then disseminating a false map of the Cambodia-Vietnam border on his political party’s website. The map posted on the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) website shows an area along the border of the two countries in which Rainsy alleges the Vietnamese government tampered with four border posts, placing them further into Cambodian territory than UN, US Army, Google, and French colonial maps specify. If convicted, Rainsy could be sentenced to 15 years in prison for falsifying documents and an additional three years for posting those documents publicly. Earlier this month, Cambodian authorities admonished Google for maps pertaining to another disputed border area. Rainsy and his political party maintain that the current Cambodian government have enabled Vietnam to encroach on Cambodian territory.
In January, Rainsy and two villagers were convicted in absentia of inciting racial discrimination and intentionally destroying posts demarcating the border between Cambodia and Vietnam last October. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the closed-door trial of Sam Rainsy and the two villagers a “farce,” saying the ruling demonstrates the government’s control over the country’s judiciary. In 2006, Rainsy received a royal pardon for a 2005 defamation conviction. He is currently self-exiled in France, but remains actively involved in Cambodian affairs.

[JURIST] The United Nations General Assembly voted Friday to give the Israelis and Palestinians additional time to finish their separate investigations into alleged human rights violations that took place during the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza. The measure, which gives the two parties five additional months, was opposed by Israel and the US. While permanent Palestinian observer to the UN Riyad Mansour called the resolution a “victory”, Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev questioned the impartiality of the Palestinian investigation as it would be carried out by Hamas. Meanwhile, US Ambassador Alejandro Wolff voted against the measure because Israel had already submitted a detailed report to the General Assembly, and because he said the resolution was inherently biased against Israel. He claimed the original UN fact-finding report on the Gaza conflict, the Goldstone report, was similarly biased.
Earlier this month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it was unclear if Israel and the Palestinians had fully met UN demands to investigate war crimes that may have taken place during the Gaza conflict. In November 2009, the UN had originally adopted a resolution giving the two parties three months to complete an independent investigation. According to the Goldstone report, which was officially endorsed by the UN in October, both Israel and Hamas committed human rights violations during the Gaza conflict. Both Israel and the US criticized the report. An internal Israel military investigation found that no war crimes had been committed during the conflict, but Israel recently disciplined two high-ranking officers for firing shells into a populated area of the Gaza strip.