Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] US Senate Judiciary Committee committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said at a hearing Friday that he was prepared to subpoena the Department of Justice (DOJ) if it did not turn over missing e-mail records of former Bush administration lawyers John Yoo and Patrick Philbin dealing with the so-called “torture memos” justifying the use of harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects. Leahy urged that a “true accounting and a comprehensive review” be conducted to determine “how the United States government came to authorize torture.” He said that a recently concluded DOJ investigation was limited to whether the lawyers violated “legal profession rules,” and he was interested in the role that senior Bush administration officials had played in writing legal justifications for interrogation methods that critics have called torture. He observed:The role of the White House in the politicization of the OLC and in ensuring that these opinions delivered the legal immunity they were looking for has yet to be fully explored. My sense is that such a review would reveal the same untoward and corrupting influence we found when we investigated the purging of United States Attorneys for political purposes.Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, countered that it was important to put the memos in context. He said they were written in 2002 when the lawyers were acting under tremendous pressure to prevent a future terrorist attack on the United States.
Last week, the DOJ overruled the findings of an internal ethics investigation by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and said that Yoo and Jay Bybee, another former Bush administration lawyer, were not guilty of professional misconduct. Leahy previously called for a “truth commission” to investigate Bush administration officials for authorizing the interrogation techniques. The Obama administration has said that it opposes the formation of an independent investigatory commission.

[JURIST] Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond unveiled a proposal Thursday that, if passed, would allow Scottish voters to choose whether to expand the country’s autonomy. The draft referendum contains two ballot papers. One version of the first question asks whether Scotland should cut ties with the UK in most areas excluding foreign affairs, defense, monetary policy, and the currency. Another version of the first question would reduce reliance on the UK in financial areas, allowing Scotland to, among other things, impose an income tax. The second ballot paper goes farther, asking whether Scotland should become an independent state with the possibility of membership in the European Union, while retaining the queen as the head of state. In the foreword to the Bill Consultation Paper, Salmond wrote:I believe that the future prosperity and development of Scotland is best served by Scotland becoming independent. The case for an independent Scotland is stronger and more urgent following recent economic events. It is exactly the flexibility that is offered by independence that Scotland needs if it is to deal most effectively with such challenges in the future. But I recognise that there are also those who argue that the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament should be extended in more limited ways.Scottish Conservative Party leader Annabel Goldie called the proposal a “standard distraction tool” to divert attention away from Salmond’s failings, a sentiment echoed by leaders of other opposition parties. The Bill Consultation Paper allows input on the proposed ballot measures until April 30.
The proposals are largely based on a November Scottish government report entitled “Your Scotland, Your Voice” favoring increased devolution or independence. In June 2009 the Commission on Scottish Devolution released a report calling for maintaining strong ties with the rest of the UK while giving the Scottish government greater autonomy in taxation, crime fighting and other areas of regulation. A 2007 government white paper called for increased devolution and the possibility of a referendum on independence. In 2005 English Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Scotland against leaving the UK and called for solidarity among UK countries. The Scottish parliament was created by the Scotland Act of 1998 after a 1997 referendum showed support for a devolved Scottish government.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Friday opened the trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Zdravko Tolimir. Tolimir is charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder. The crimes with which Tolimir is charged were allegedly carried out against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica and Zepa from July-November 2005.
Also on Friday, the ICTY rejected a motion by Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to delay the calling of witnesses in his own trial. Karadzic and Tolimir’s cases are among the 40 ongoing trials at the ICTY. Tolimir, a former general and aide to top Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic, was apprehended in May 2007. Mladic and Bosnian Serb political leader Goran Hadzic remain at large. The ICTY has indicted 161 political and military officials since its creation in 1993.

[JURIST] The top Venezuelan human rights official on Thursday criticized findings in a report issued by the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Ombudsman Gabriela Ramirez, Venezuela’s top rights official, said that the report makes unfair characterizations and undermines Venezuelan democracy. Ramirez responded to statistical findings in the report that suggest the perpetuation of undemocratic processes, saying that the data actually show an improved rights record. In a related statement issued Friday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reaffirmed his belief that the IACHR, which has seven members elected by the OAS General Assembly, is an instrument of US imperialism.
Venezuela has long been criticized for rights abuses, allegations that the Chavez government has repeatedly denied. Last year, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) added Venezuela to its “watch list” of countries that limit religious freedom. Also last year, the US State Department criticized Venezuela for press restrictions in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In 2008, Venezuelan officials ordered two senior Human Rights Watch (HRW) staff to leave the country after the group released a report concluding that democracy and human rights have suffered during the Chavez administration.

[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled Friday that Russian courts must reconsider civil cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), ordering legislative amendments. The rule previously applied only to criminal and arbitration cases. The decision stems from a complaint brought by three Russian citizens who won legal battles in the ECHR, only to find that Russian courts would not rehear their cases. The courts had cited Article 392 of Russia’s Civil Procedure Code, which does not explicitly enumerate cases tried by the ECHR among cases that can be retried.
The Russian Federation has been working to reform its relations with the EHCR. Last month, the Russian Federation Council voted to ratify Protocol 14 to reform the European Convention on Human Rights. In June, the Council of Europe (COE) harshly criticized Russia’s judicial system and called for reform. In recent years, Russia has had the largest number of cases pending in the ECHR out of any COE member-state. In 2009, Russia had 32,600 cases pending, followed next by Turkey, which had 12,800 cases pending, and in 2008 Russia had 27,250 cases pending, followed next by Turkey, which had 11,100 cases pending. In 2008, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed that Russian courts become more transparent in order to restore faith in the justice system and prevent people from turning to the ECHR.

[JURIST] UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze on Friday condemned calls by Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi for a jihad on Switzerland. Gaddafi issued the call in response to Switzerland’s recent vote to ban the construction of minarets. Ordzhonikidze called the declaration “inadmissible”. Also Friday, a spokesperson for EU high representative Catherine Ashton criticized Gaddafi’s calls. Gaddafi had earlier warned that the ban could make Switzerland an enticing target for al Qaeda.
In December, Hafid Ouardiri, a former spokesman at the Geneva Mosque, filed a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) challenging the ban on the construction of minarets, a week after a group of Swiss intellectuals called for the ban’s reversal. Swiss Supreme Court President Lawrence Meyer also said that two suits have been filed in federal court challenging the ban’s legality. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has condemned the ban as a form of religious discrimination. In 2008, the Swiss government announced that Swiss nationalist parties had gathered enough signatures on their initiative against the construction of minarets to force a national referendum on whether the country’s constitution should be amended to ban the structures. The initiative was originally sponsored by the anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party (SVP).

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives on Thursday approved a measure to extend expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act with no new privacy measures. Representatives voted 315-97 in favor of the measure, which would allow federal authorities to conduct “roving” wiretaps, to compel the production of business, medical, and library records, and to track so-called “lone wolf” suspects who are not affiliated with an organization or country, so long as they are not US citizens. The vote came just one day after the Senate approved the extension. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the extension, with Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office Laura Murphy saying:
Congress refuses to make reforming the Patriot Act a priority and continues to punt this crucial issue down the road. Once again, we have missed an opportunity to put the proper civil liberties and privacy protections into this bill. Congress should respect the rule of law and should have taken this opportunity to better protect the privacy and freedom of innocent Americans. We shouldn’t have to live under these unconstitutional provisions for another year.The extension will go into effect after approval from US President Barack Obama.In September, the Obama administration asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to extend the Patriot Act. The Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize the three provisions in question in October. In December, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act due to lack of standing. The US District Court for the District of Oregon had previously ruled that certain provisions of the act were unconstitutional.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Thursday that a federal grand jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York has returned a five-count superseding indictment against suspected terrorists Adis Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay. The men, both US citizens, have been charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction and commit murder in the US, and providing material support to and receiving training from al Qaeda in connection with a plot to detonate explosives in the New York City subway system. Ahmedzay faces an additional count of making false statements in a terrorism investigation. Both men were arrested last month, and Medunjanin has pleaded not guilty to similar charges. Two of the counts carry possible sentences of life in prison. Both pleaded not guilty to the new charges on Friday.
Medunjanin and Ahmedzay are suspected of operating in conjunction with Najibullah Zazi, a native of Afghanistan arrested by FBI agents in Colorado last fall. The three allegedly traveled together to Pakistan in 2008 to receive al Qaeda training. Zazi pleaded guilty to three criminal charges earlier this week, including conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in the US and to commit murder in a foreign country, as well as providing material support for al-Qaeda. He faces up to life in prison for two of the counts, and 15 years in prison for the third.

[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Thailand ruled Friday to seize 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) in assets from ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra for abuses of power while in office. The court found that Thaksin crafted government telecommunications policy to benefit his family by providing them with shares in Shin Corporation. The shares were then sold just three days after the the government raised the maximum foreign ownership of telecommunication companies from 20 percent to 49 percent. The Thai attorney general sought to have all family assets seized, but the Court found that 30.2 billion baht belonged to Thaksin’s family and could not be confiscated. Thaksin maintains that his wealth was honestly earned and taken for political reasons.
In November, Cambodia refused a request by the current Thai administration to extradite Thaksin, heightening tensions among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In October 2008, a Thai court found Thaksin guilty in absentia on corruption charges and sentenced him to two years in prison. In August 2008, Thai prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to seize over $2 billion from Thaksin’s frozen accounts and holdings in relation to the charges. In July 2008, the Thai Attorney General’s Office filed corruption charges against Thaksin for his role in a 2003 resolution reducing fees paid by mobile phone companies to state telecommunications agencies. Later that month, Thaksin’s wife, as well as her step brother and secretary, were convicted of tax evasion as a result of her transferring $16.3 million worth of stock to the two.

[JURIST] Myanmar’s Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the latest appeal by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi against the extension of her house arrest. The court heard Suu Kyi’s latest appeal to the 18-month extension last month. Suu Kyi appealed to the supreme court in November after a lower court found her guilty of violating the terms of her house arrest when she allowed an American to stay with her after he swam across a lake to her home. Suu Kyi’s lawyer, Nyan Win, said that he will file one final appeal after learning the reasons for the court’s decision. He has argued that the extension to Suu Kyi’s arrest is based on provisions of the now-defunct 1974 constitution.
Suu Kyi’s detention in her compound in Yangon will prohibit her from competing in this year’s elections as a member of her National League for Democracy (NLD) party. Suu Kyi, who has been in prison or under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, will be released in November, according to a government official, likely after the elections have taken place. The Myanmar Supreme Court agreed to hear Suu Kyi’s case in December after an unsuccessful October appeal to the Divisional Court in Rangoon. In addition to rejecting the appeal, the lower court ruled that Suu Kyi herself would be barred from attending the proceedings.

[JURIST] The England and Wales Court of Appeal on Friday disclosed additional text that was omitted from a previous ruling related to former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed. The language in question is critical of British intelligence service MI5, suggesting that its agents were aware of Mohamed’s “mistreatment” while in US custody despite reports to the contrary and questioning the reliability of agents’ statements. The court cited “the principles of open justice” in its decision to release the section, which was originally redacted after a senior governmental lawyer reviewed a draft of the judgment and raised concerns about its fairness. Amnesty International UK welcomed the order and called for additional inquiries into the British government’s involvement with torture.
The language was originally to be included in an order the court issued earlier this month that instructed the government to release seven previously withheld paragraphs outlining the alleged torture of Mohamed. The court’s ruling ended the long-running legal battle to keep the information classified. In December, British government lawyers argued that two UK High Court judges acted irresponsibly when they ruled that the details of the detention must be released. This was following an interim ruling by Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones that redacted the release. Last November, a separate judge on the High Court ruled that, in Mohamed’s separate suit for damages, information relating to his treatment at Guantanamo Bay may be withheld under a “closed material procedure.” Mohamed was returned to the UK in February 2009, after charges against him were dismissed in October 2008. Mohamed had been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years on suspicion of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

[JURIST] Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation on Thursday overturned the bribery conviction of David Mills, a British barrister and former lawyer to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The court agreed with prosecutors who said the statute of limitations had expired, but fined Mills €250,000 for damaging the state’s reputation and ordered Mills to pay €10,000 for legal costs. Mills was sentenced last February to four-and-a-half years in prison for allegedly accepting USD $600,000 in bribes for offering false testimony at two trials in 1997 and 1998 involving Berlusconi’s broadcasting company Mediaset. An appeals court upheld his conviction in October. It appears likely that prosecutors will drop charges against Berlusconi associated with the incident since the court ruled the statute of limitations has expired. Berlusconi’s trial was scheduled to resume Friday.
Berlusconi’s trial was postponed in January so that the court could hear Mills’s appeal. Proceedings were previously delayed late last year while the court determined whether Berlusconi was immune from prosecution. In October, the Italian Constitutional Court struck down a law granting top Italian lawmakers immunity from prosecution while in office. Berlusconi was removed as a defendant in the case after the 2007 passage of the immunity law. The bribery and corruption trial against Berlusconi and Mills began in early 2007. Mills’s allegedly false testimony was given during trials at which Berlusconi was acquitted of paying kickbacks to the late Socialist premier Bettino Craxi.

[JURIST] A Turkish court charged an additional 11 military officers Friday morning as the investigation into the military’s so-called “Sledgehammer plot” to overthrow the government continues, bringing the total charged so far to 31. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke at a Justice Development Party (AKP) meeting, vowing that all those involved in the plot would stand trial. Police also arrested 18 more officers Friday, bringing the total detained to more than 50. Tensions between the military and the government appeared to ease after three top generals were released from custody Thursday. Turkey’s prime minister and president met with the head of the armed forces, General Ilker Basbug, for three hours on Thursday, discussing ways to resolve the situation.
Twelve officers were charged in the alleged plot Wednesday after mass arrests Monday resulted in the detention of more than 40. Arrests and charges began after the newspaper Taraf revealed the 2003 Balyoz Security Operation Plan, or “Sledgehammer plot,” last month. The plot included detailed plans to bomb Istanbul mosques and provoke Greece into shooting down a Turkish plane as part of an effort to undermine the government. Turkey’s secular nationalist establishment, including the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), has had tense relations with the AKP government, which is accused of having radical Islamic ambitions. The TAF has been Turkey’s strongest and most trusted institution for years. The military drafted the country’s current constitution in 1982 after a coup d’état, one of four times that the military has overthrown the government in the past 50 years. The Sledgehammer plot is similar to the Ergenekon conspiracy, in which the secular group is suspected of planning to overthrow the AKP. The Ergenekon group is also alleged to be involved in bombings, political assassination plots, and the death of journalist Hrant Dink. Trials in the Ergenekon conspiracy opened two years ago with more than 200 suspects in custody.

[JURIST] French President Nicholas Sarkozy admitted Thursday that France and the international community made “mistakes” in handling the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Sarkozy spoke while on a visit to Rwanda to meet with President Paul Kagame, the first visit to Rwanda by a French president since the genocide of the Tutsi people by the Hutus. Sarkozy said France and the rest of the world made errors that allowed the genocide to happen but did not offer a formal apology. The trip is intended to strengthen ties between the two countries after France severed ties with Rwanda in 2006 when a French judge accused Kagame of being involved in shooting down a plane carrying the former Rwandan president, which initiated the genocide. Kagame, the leader of the Tutsi rebels who took control of the country, ending the conflict, claims the plane was shot down by Hutu extremists to justify the mass killings during the genocide.
Prosecutions of those responsible for the genocide are ongoing. Earlier on Thursday, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) convicted ex-army officer Ephrem Setako of genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. Also this month, the ICTR convicted former Rwandan army officer Tharcisse Muvunyi of direct and public incitement to genocide and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. In January, French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner announced plans to create a special judicial service to investigate and charge individuals accused of crimes against humanity and genocide in France or in other countries. The new judicial unit would streamline the prosecution of Rwandans living in France who are accused of war crimes committed during the 1994 conflict.

[JURIST] Spain’s Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a bill that will ease restrictions on abortions. The legislation passed once three veto proposals were denied by majority votes, after which 88 amendments were rejected. The new law allows for abortions to be performed up to 22 weeks with the confirmation of two doctors that there exists fetal malformation or that the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother’s health. A fetus diagnosed with a life-threatening condition may be aborted after the 22 week period. Additionally, women aged 16 or 17 are also allowed to have an abortion without parental consent, though they must notify their parents. The legislation will effect four months after official publication, which is expected to occur in March.
Spain’s lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies, passed the bill in December after it received approval from the Council of State in September. In October, hundreds of thousands of protesters rallied in Madrid in opposition to the proposed legislation. The changes were proposed last March by a panel of legal and medical experts led by Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido, eliciting widespread protests throughout Spain. The panel was formed in September 2008 at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage and streamlined divorce proceedings. The conservative Popular Party has repeatedly expressed the opinion that relaxed abortion laws would stand in opposition to Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. Prior to the revisions, Spanish abortion laws dated to 1985, after the end of the Franco regime, and were among the most restrictive in European nations. Abortions were permitted only in the case of rape, up to 12 weeks, severe fetal malformation, up to 22 weeks, or if the woman’s physical or mental health was in danger.

[JURIST] The Federal Court of Australia ruled Thursday that former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib can sue the Australian government for complicity in his ill-treatment while incarcerated in Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Habib claims he suffered sleep deprivation, electrocution, and drug injections during his detainment, some of which happened in collusion with or in the presence of Australian officials. The Commonwealth of Australia, which denies the allegations, claimed the case should be thrown out because it was outside the realm of the judiciary to hear a case on the actions of foreign officials. A three-judge panel rejected this claim stating that torture offends the “ideal of common humanity,” whether administered domestically or abroad, and can never be justified by official acts or policy. Habib said that he plans to sue the Australian government for unlimited damages.
In 2008, the Federal Court of Australia ruled against Habib in his ongoing claim for compensation against the Australian government, finding that he was mistaken and was not interrogated anywhere under the control of the Australian government. Habib was detained in 2001 in Pakistan and was held in Egypt and Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo Bay for three years, where the US accused him of aiding terrorist militants. The US released him without charge in 2005. Habib and his lawyers have repeatedly said that he was tortured while in US custody.

[JURIST] A Turkish court on Thursday released three high ranking military officials detained for questioning over an alleged coup plot, hours after top political and military officials met to discuss the escalating situation. The court released former chief of the Navy, Adm. Ozden Ornek, ex-chief of the Air Force Gen. Ibrahim Firtina, and Gen. Ergin Saygun, ex-deputy chief of the military, but all three remain under investigation. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug, met in Ankara, to discuss tensions over the coup plot and the ensuing prosecutions. Eight officers were charged early Thursday on top of the 12 charged on Wednesday. Had Ornek and Firtina also been charged, they would have been the most senior military officers charged thus far in connection with the 2003 Balyoz Security Operation Plan, or “Sledgehammer plot,” revealed last month by the newspaper Taraf.
Ornek and Firtina were apprehended on Monday by Turkish police in an operation that detained more than 40 people in connection to the coup. Turkey’s secular nationalist establishment, including the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), has long conflicted with the ruling Justice Development Party (AKP). In July 2009, Gul approved a law that would allow the prosecution of military personnel in civilian courts and would prevent military prosecution of civilians during peacetime. Gul said that the law was necessary for accession to the European Union (EU). The Sledgehammer plot is similar to the Ergenekon conspiracy, in which the secular group is suspected of planning to overthrow the AKP. The Ergenekon group is also alleged to be involved in bombings, political assassination plots, and the death of journalist Hrant Dink. The probe into the Ergenekon conspiracy has been criticized as an attempt by the AKP to silence opposition and further its imposition of Islamic principles in violation of Turkey’s secular constitution.

[JURIST] UK Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP), Keir Starmer, published a new policy on Thursday for prosecutors in regards to cases of assisted suicide. While the new policy does not legalize assisted suicide, it introduces six public interest considerations against prosecution, including compassion of the suspect, an effort to dissuade the victim, and reporting the suicide to the police. Starmer developed the new policy by gathering public opinion through a consultation process, which garnered more than 5,000 responses. The DDP assured the public that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will follow the new policy:
The policy is now more focused on the motivation of the suspect rather than the characteristics of the victim. The policy does not change the law on assisted suicide. It does not open the door for euthanasia. It does not override the will of Parliament. What it does is to provide a clear framework for prosecutors to decide which cases should proceed to court and which should not. … As a result of the there have been changes to the policy. But that does not mean prosecutions are more or less likely. The policy has not been relaxed or tightened but there has been a change of focus.Starmer went on to say that case assessment will not rely solely on public interest factors. Each case will be decided on its own facts and merits.The new policy will replace an interim policy set up by the DDP in September. The interim policy was published pursuant to a July order from the UK Law Lords to clarify the issue. The order resulted from a case brought by Debbie Purdy, a multiple sclerosis sufferer, who wants to travel to Switzerland with her husband to end her life. Under the country’s Suicide Act 1961, Purdy’s husband faces criminal liability for aiding her suicide in another country. Many Britons have reportedly gone to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to obtain assisted suicides. Also in July, the House of Lords rejected a bill that would would have barred prosecuting those who go abroad to help others commit assisted suicide. Last year, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke out against laws allowing assisted suicide, saying that he would not create laws that “put pressure on people to end their lives.”

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay publicly supported the final report of the UN Fact Finding Mission of the Gaza Conflict on Wednesday, calling its conclusions sound. The report, originally adopted by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in October, accused both Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas fighters of war crimes during the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Pillay praised the mission for its methodology, and the report itself for promoting accountability:
In a 60 year-long conflict marred by egregious human rights violations, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, cynics are often ready to label accountability as utopia or, at least, as wishful thinking. However, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission succeeded in placing the acute need for accountability on the international community’s agenda, compelling different and often opposing constituencies to take note of the facts documented and the calls for justice from victims on all sides. The report was met with criticism from both Israeli and Hamas leaders, which Pillay dismissed as politically motivated.Earlier this month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said that it was unclear whether Israel and Palestine have fully met UN demands to set up a commission to investigate war crimes that may have occurred the conflict. Also this month, the Israeli Foreign Ministry released a 46-page report to the UN, partially detailing Israeli operations in Gaza and revealing that the Israeli military had disciplined two high-ranking Army officers for firing shells into a populated area in the Gaza strip. Hamas also reported to the UN that it completed an independent investigation, finding that Palestinian forces innocent of any wrongdoing and that the Israeli civilian deaths were an accident.

[JURIST] Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler said Wednesday that the state of Maryland and its agencies should recognize same-sex marriages performed lawfully in other states. Gansler’s opinion, issued in response to a legislator’s request for clarification of Maryland law, said that the state’s highest court would likely rule that legal same-sex marriages from other states are valid in Maryland. Gansler concluded:
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland’s developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.Gansler noted that this is a “prediction, not a prescription, as to the how the Court would approach this issue under current law.” The opinion does not affect state law, but state agencies will use it as guidance.In January, the Hawaii House of Representatives postponed indefinitely a vote on legislation that would have allowed persons in same-sex civil unions the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and is set to become legal in Washington DC, pending Congressional inaction. New Jersey has recognized same-sex civil unions since 2006.