Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Turkish police on Monday detained more than 40 people in connection with an alleged military plot to overthrow the Islamic-rooted government. According to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the arrests occurred during security operations in which 14 senior military officers, including former air force chief Ibrahim Firtina and former navy chief Ozden Ornek, were taken into custody. The investigation comes after the liberal newspaper Taraf exposed a plot by a group within the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) in January. The newspaper described the Balyoz Security Operation Plan (Sledgehammer plot) and the 5,000 page document that detailed plans to bomb Istanbul mosques and provoke Greece into shooting down Turkish planes.
The alleged coup plot highlights the continuing power struggle between Turkey’s ruling Justice Development Party (AKP) and the country’s secular nationalist establishment. 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. Trials against the Ergenekon group opened two years ago with more than 200 suspects in custody. The suspects include journalists, academics, army officers, policemen, and Turkish Workers’ Party leader Dogu Perincek.

[JURIST] An Algerian criminal court on Sunday acquitted former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mustafa Hemlili of charges of counterfeiting and affiliation to a militant group that is active abroad. Hemlili was released from Guantanamo, along with fellow inmate Hederbash Sufian, after a six-year detention period. The court separated the trials of the two defendants, stating that the only link between them was the date of their release. Sufian’s trial was postponed due to poor health after his lawyers presented evidence showing that he suffers from mental trauma as a result of his treatment at the US naval facility. Hemlili had traveled with family members to Mali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan without a passport before going to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region to work with an international relief agency assisting Afghan refugees. After the 9/11 attacks, Hemlili was captured in Peshawar, Pakistan, with a forged Iraqi passport.
Last month, two other Guantanamo Bay detainees were transferred to Algeria, the latest in a string of transfers to the country spanning several years. Both were Algerian nationals, bringing the total number of Algerians released from Guantanamo to 19. The transfer came amid criticisms from Republican Congress members after a Department of Defense official stated that one in five detainees have returned to terrorist activities, according to a classified Pentagon report. Another Guantanamo Bay detainee, Ahmed Belbacha, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for being part of an “overseas terrorist group” by an Algerian court in November. The week prior, the court acquitted former detainees Abdulli Feghoul and Terari Mohamed. Feghoul and Mohamed were repatriated to Algeria in August 2008 after being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility for seven years.

[JURIST] A Buddhist monk was sentenced to seven years imprisonment in Myanmar during a visit by UN High Representative for Human Rights Tomas Ojea Quintana, an opposition lawyer confirmed Saturday. Gaw Thita was convicted Wednesday by a special court in Insein Prison for violating immigration laws in relation to a trip he took to Taiwan, unlawful association, and for failing to declare foreign currency, according to Aung Thein, a former lawyer for the National League for Democracy (NLD). Thita was arrested at Yangon International Airport in August along with seven other monks who were later released without charge. According to Thein, Thita had a valid passport and had not committed any immigration violations. Thita’s conviction followed those of four dissidents on Monday, coinciding with the commencement of Quintana’s five day visit to the country to assess the human rights situation before the planned 2010 general election. At a press conference at the conclusion of his visit, Quintana expressed great disappointment:
Despite anticipation of landmark elections this year, I have not received any indication that the military government is willing to release all prisoners of conscience. … Without full participation of the people including the 2,200 prisoners of conscience and the environment that allows the parties to engage in a full range of electoral activities, the elections … will not be credible.Quintana met with 15 prisoners during visits to three prisons, but his requests to meet with imprisoned opposition leader Aung Sun Suu Kyi and junta leader Senior General Than Shwe were denied. Quintana’s report on the state of human rights in Myanmar is expected in March.The ruling military junta released 82-year old democracy activist U Tin Oo from six years of house arrest just days before Quintana’s arrival. Oo, a decorated general, is the Vice-Chairman of the NLD, the opposition party headed by Suu Kyi. Thant Zin Oo, the general’s son, said the release was a calculated political move designed to appease the UN. The government of Myanmar announced last year that it was processing grants of immunity to allow prisoners to participate in the coming elections but it is unclear if the NLD will take part in them. Home Minister Major General Maung Oo announced in January that Suu Kyi will be released from house arrest in November when her sentence is scheduled to expire. The announcement has been seen as an indication that she will not be allowed to participate in the elections.

[JURIST] Saudi Justice Minister Mohammed al-Eissa announced Saturday that women will be allowed to argue cases in court under a new law that his department is drafting. The law is expected to be issued in the near future and would allow female lawyers to represent other women in cases related to family law, such as child custody, marriage, and divorce. The new law would also allow women to perform other legal functions without presenting witnesses, such as preliminary procedures with notaries, authorizing corporate contracts, registering properties, and mortgaging real estate. Eissa described the new law as part of an ongoing judicial reform undertaken by King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz aimed at developing the legal system, which would also lead to the creation of specialized family courts for women to practice in. Currently, female lawyers are not allowed to practice before the Saudi judiciary, which is comprised solely of male religious clerics. The Saudi legal system is based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law, which enforces gender separation. Under this system, female lawyers work in designated sections of law and governmental offices designed to eliminate their interactions with the opposite sex.
Eissa was appointed as justice minister last February as part of a larger government reorganization undertaken by Abdullah, which included the replacement of the heads of the education, health, and culture and media ministries, and saw the appointment of the first female deputy minister of women’s education. In October 2007, Abdullah enacted a wide-ranging judicial reform bill, creating new supreme, appeals, and general courts. The judicial reform also allocated two billion dollars to the construction of new court houses and the training of judges, who, before the reform, had wide latitude to rule according to their own interpretations of Islamic law and resisted the codification of laws or the idea of being bound by precedent. These reforms come after significant reforms of women’s political rights in neighboring Kuwait, which has resulted in the enfranchisement of women in 2005, the appointment of Kuwaiti women to public office a month later, and the election of four women to the Kuwait National Assembly last June.

[JURIST] Oklahoma state court judge Daniel Owens ruled Friday that a state law, making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender of a fetus and requiring numerous reporting requirements, violates the Oklahoma Constitution. Owens found that the law, called the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, violated the constitutional requirement that a law cover only a single subject. Provisions of the law banned doctors from performing an abortion based on a women’s desire for a baby of a specific sex, required doctors to ask a series of more than 35 questions inquiring into a woman’s relationships and reasons for wanting an abortion, and set up a website that would have displayed demographics based on the information gathered. The law allowed for criminal charges against doctors who failed to report the information. Oklahoma legislators have said they will work around the ruling by passing separate bills to cover each subject of the invalidated law.
The law was challenged last year by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of two Oklahoma residents. In August a different state law requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure was found to be unconstitutional. That legislation was declared to be invalid based on the same single subject requirement. Provisions of that law also included requirements for abortion clinic signs, the administration of an early-term abortion pill, and rules on lawsuits relating to abortions. That ruling has been appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

[JURIST] Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko on Saturday withdrew her lawsuit filed in the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine claiming that the country’s presidential election was corrupt. Tymoshenko dropped the suit claiming she would not receive a fair hearing in the court. She had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed her opponent, Viktor Yanukovych, to win the election. The prime minister’s allegations of unfairness came after the court refused to consider certain documentary evidence and to call witnesses from the various district and precinct election commissions. Despite dropping her legal challenge, Tymoshenko has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Yanukovych’s election and has refused his calls for her to step down.
Tymoshenko appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine after an initial fraud appeal to the Ukrainian Central Election Committee was rejected. Tymoshenko had called for the hearing be televised, a request the court refused, as a way of ensuring that the Ukrainian people know the truth. Many believed Tymoshenko had little chance for success. Western leaders, including US President Barack Obama, have already acknowledged Yanukovych as the winner and even many of Tymoshenko supporters have questioned her motivation for the lawsuit.

[JURIST] The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on Saturday called for an independent investigation into allegations that the government had knowledge of and was complicit in the torture of Binyam Mohamed and 24 other British residents and citizens while they were held abroad as terror suspects. The EHRC’s statement cites a letter from the organization’s chair, Trevor Phillips, sent to Secretary of State Jack Straw calling for the government to address concerns that the case of Mohamed was not an isolated instance. The EHRC called for an open and independent review, saying:
The Government has stated unequivocally that the allegations are unsubstantiated and that it does not condone or support torture carried out by foreign agencies. However, the Commission does not believe the Government’s response to these allegations is sufficient and that not enough has been done to reassure the Commission and the public that these allegations are unfounded.The EHRC’s appeal coincides with the recent Court of Appeals disclosure of evidence that Mohamed received “deliberate ill-treatment” by the US.The former attorney general for England and Wales Lord Peter Goldsmith earlier this month called for an investigation into whether British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects abroad. Days earlier, MI5 Director General Jonathan Evans had denied accusations that MI5 had collaborated with the US over the alleged torture of Mohammed in response to criticisms that the organization did not respect human rights, that it misled parliament, and that it supported a culture of suppression.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has overruled the findings of a report released Friday concluding that two Bush administration lawyers committed professional misconduct when they wrote memos authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques that critics have called torture. Instead, the DOJ said that John Yoo, and Jay Bybee were only guilty of “poor judgment” in writing the memos. An internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that Yoo had committed “intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice.” The report also found that Bybee had committed professional misconduct when he acted in “reckless disregard” of his duty to exercise independent legal advice. However, David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general, released a separate memo overruling the OPR’s report, finding its analysis was flawed because it did not have a clear definition of what constitutes professional misconduct. Margolis said:
This decision should not be viewed as an endorsement of the legal work that underlies those memoranda. However, OPR’s own analytical framework defines “professional misconduct” such that a finding of misconduct depends on application of an known or unambiguous obligation or standard to the attorney’s conduct. I am unpersuaded that OPR has identified such a standard.While Margolis said that the memos contained “significant flaws,” he said not all flaws constitute professional misconduct. He also criticized OPR for failing to identify a violation of a specific bar rule, but instead cobbling together standards of conduct from the DC Rules of Professional Conduct, an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo issued in 2005, and other sources that do not directly apply. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Constitution Project both called for a thorough investigation into the memos that targeted more senior Bush administration officials. In July, Yoo appealed a district court ruling that allows a lawsuit alleging his complicity in torture to proceed. Meanwhile, former US attorney general John Ashcroft has defended the advice the DOJ gave the Bush administration on the use of certain interrogation techniques, saying that all guidelines issued by his office were legal. A coalition of organizations has filed complaints with bar associations attempting to get Bybee, Yoo, and other Bush administration lawyers disbarred. Last March, a Spanish judge asked prosecutors to consider investigating Bush administration lawyers, including Yoo and Bybee, for human rights violations under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

[JURIST] International Criminal Court (ICC) deputy prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said Friday that Guinean authorities likely committed crimes against humanity when more than 150 pro-democracy protesters killed in Conarky in September 2009. At the conclusion of her three day visit, Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer, said that the ICC would work with the Guinean legal system to prosecute the offenders. Meanwhile, Guinean Prime Minister Jean Marie Dore said that his country’s legal system would have great difficulty prosecuting the crimes due to the lack of an impartial judicial system.
Earlier this month, a commission created by Guinea’s junta announced that former Guinean junta aide Lieutenant Aboubacar Cherif “Toumba” Diakite is the sole government official to blame for the massacre. The commission’s conclusion contradicts a UN report that blamed junta leader Moussa Dadis Camara, Minister for Special Services Moussa Tiegboro Camara, and Toumba for the September 28 slayings. In October, the ICC placed the Guinean military under preliminary investigation for human rights violations related to the Conakry incident, and the UN and Guinea both announced they were creating commissions to investigate the killings. The Conakry incident stemmed from a pro-democracy demonstration against Camara, who intended to push elections forward three months and stand for re-election.

[JURIST] The Council of Europe (COE) reached a joint declaration Friday to undertake reforms of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by the end of 2011 in order to address the increasing number of complaints. The ECHR currently has a backlog of approximately 120,000 cases, of which an estimated 90 percent are inadmissible or lack a legal basis. At the Interlaken Conference, all 47 member states recognized that reform is “indispensable and urgently required” in order to”reduce the backlog of cases and to adjudicate new cases within a reasonable time,” as well as to “ensure the full and rapid execution of judgments of the Court and the effectiveness of its supervision by the Committee of Ministers.” COE Commissioner of Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg remarked:here is a serious gap of systematic implementation by member states of the Court judgments. Behind these figures one cannot but see the necessity to improve human rights protection at national level.
Any discussion about the difficulties of the European Court must focus on the need for prevention. The main question is not why the Court has difficulties to cope, but why so many individuals feel the need to go there with their complaints.The declaration’s Action Plan recognizes the need to preserve the right of individual petition, but considers changes to procedures that will reduce repetitive cases and filter admissible cases. Some of the measures proposed aim to increase efficiency by reducing the number of judges required to carry out some of these procedures. The Swiss Chairmanship of the European Council of Ministers called the conference amid concerns that the additional protocol on human rights recently ratified by all COE members would be insufficient to address the problems the ECHR currently faces. In January, Russia became the last COE member to ratify Protocol 14, which includes reforms to increase efficiency of the ECHR with measures such as filtering out inadmissible and repetitive cases. Russia was initially opposed to ratifying the protocol, which it claimed was politically motivated since an estimated 27,000 of the pending cases originated in Russia and reforms would enable them to be heard much sooner.

[JURIST] Cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA on Friday asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a 2006 district court ruling that held the tobacco industry liable under civil racketeering laws for deceiving American consumers as to the health effects of their products. Philip Morris argued that the trial court’s decision did not properly consider issues involving the First Amendment and that the government’s application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was overbroad. The company gave its reasoning for the appeal:
The government’s use of injunctive litigation to obtain regulatory authority that it had been unable to secure through the legislative and administrative processes upended the First Amendment, distorted RICO beyond recognition, and vastly exceeded the remedial authority of Article III courts. Absent further review, the government will henceforth be free to pervert RICO into a device for evading the legislative process, penalizing and chilling public debate on scientific matters, and constraining constitutionally protected speech through vague and sweeping injunctions. And, the government will be able to do so without significant procedural protections beyond the findings of a single judge.Altria Group, Phillip Morris’ parent company, also filed a petition in the case. Additionally on Friday, the Obama administration submitted a petition in the case seeking to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that the government could not seek a $280 billion penalty against the companies for past profits and limited relief to prevention of future violations.The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the district court ruling in May. The US brought the initial action under RICO, which criminalizes the conduction or participation in the affairs of an enterprise that affects interstate or foreign commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity. The ruling required tobacco manufacturers to issue public statements to correct messages it had put out denying the health hazards of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking, the dangers of second-hand smoke, and the manufacturers’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery. The companies were also required to cease using any express or implied health terminology such as “light” or “low tar.” While the appellate court affirmed many of the district court’s remedial injunctions, it rejected a remedy that would have required tobacco manufacturers to effectively force retailers to display large freestanding displays to convey the corrective messages, reasoning that the district court did not consider the rights of innocent persons as required by RICO.

[JURIST] Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley moved for summary judgment Thursday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case will be decided in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. If the motion for summary judgment is granted, the DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman, would be declared unconstitutional without a trial. Excerpts from Coakley’s memorandum supporting the motion for summary judgment outline the commonwealth’s argument:
First, DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from intruding on areas of exclusive State authority, of which the definition and regulation of marriage is perhaps the clearest example. … Second, DOMA – which Defendants admit is “discriminatory” – violates the Spending Clause by forcing the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.The government has until April 30 to file a response to the motion.The Obama administration has said DOMA is discriminatory but has maintained that it is nonetheless constitutional. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to dismiss the lawsuit in November, stating it is the policy of the government to support federal statutes as long as there is a reasonable argument in favor of their constitutionality. Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, initiated the suit against the federal government in July. A similar suit was filed in March by a group of Massachusetts plaintiffs who are or have been married under the state’s same-sex marriage law. The DOJ has also sought to dismiss that case.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega filed a petition with the US Supreme Court Friday seeking to block his extradition to France. Noriega is relying on the dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the court’s January decision to deny certiorari in Noriega’s appeal of a lower court’s decision allowing extradition. Noriega argues that hearing his case would enable the Supreme Court to clarify the law after Boumediene v. Bush, which granted federal courts the power to review habeas petitions brought by “enemy combatants.” He also contends that a ruling in this case could resolve confusion as to whether § 5 of the Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA) constitutes a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and whether it precludes prisoners such as Noriega from bringing claims under the Geneva Conventions. The petition argues that without clarification, “district courts considering as many as 200 habeas petitions will be forced to determine factual questions under a fog of uncertain constitutional jurisprudence,” and that, unless the Court resolves the confusion, “the innocent and the guilty alike will continue to be denied meaningful review of both the conditions of their confinement and the length of their detention.”
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Noriega’s extradition in April, ruling he could not bring a claim to enforce rights under the Geneva Conventions because he was precluded by the MCA. Noriega was challenging a district court’s August 2007 ruling that allowed his extradition to France, where he is wanted 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. Noriega has made multiple attempts to block his extradition. In addition to a January 2008 ruling by US District Court Judge Paul Huck, another federal judge rejected Noriega’s arguments to block extradition in September 2007. The US State Department has indicated that it is satisfied that France will treat Noriega as a POW if Noriega is extradited to that country.

[JURIST] The US Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Justice (DOJ) on Thursday announced a $1.25 billion settlement for African American farmers claiming they suffered racial discrimination in USDA loan programs. The settlement arises from the Pigford Case, a class-action suit that was re-opened with the passage of a 2008 Farm Bill to farmers left out of a 1999 settlement after missing a filing deadline and to thousands more who argued that the terms of the settlement were inadequate. Under the terms of the new settlement, individual farmers may demonstrate their entitlement to relief through a non-judicial claims process, and:
claimants who establish their credit-related claims will be entitled to receive up to $50,000 and debt relief. A separate track may provide actual damages of up to $250,000 through a more rigorous process. The actual value of awards may be reduced based on the total amount of funds made available and the number of successful claims.In addition to the settlement, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said the USDA is implementing “a comprehensive program to take definitive action to move USDA into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider.”The Virginia-based National Black Farmers Association was allowed to proceed with this suit because the Farm Bill included a provision that expressly permitted new claims of improper discrimination in the allocation of USDA resources, including loans, disaster relief, and other resources. In 1997, black farmers alleged in Pigford v. Glickman that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. The case was settled, and the court approved a consent decree, which set up a two-track dispute resolution system.

[JURIST] Niger’s military leaders on Thursday suspended the country’s constitution and dissolved all state institutions after the coup that took place the same day. A spokesperson for the military junta, which is calling itself the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), made the announcement on state TV. The African Union (AU) condemned the coup in a statement issued Friday by AU Chairperson of the Commission Jean Ping:
The Chairperson of the Commission stresses that the relevant AU instruments systematically condemn any unconstitutional change and, accordingly, he condemns the seizure of power by force that took place in Niger. He calls for the speedy return to constitutional order and affirms the readiness of the AU, in close collaboration with ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), to facilitate such a process.Ping also noted that the AU has played an active role in facilitating dialogue within Niger on the country’s tenuous political situation. Thursday’s coup, which left at least three Nigerien soldiers dead, comes six months after a referendum was passed abolishing presidential term limits and allowing ousted president Mamadou Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger’s opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution’s adoption. In September, members of the opposition parties said that police had detained 30 former opposition lawmakers, allegedly at the behest of Tandja. The 30 former members of parliament were arrested on charges of embezzlement, but were likely being targeted for their dissidence, as they refused to recognize Tandja’s expansion of powers. One week later, leader of the opposition Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism (PNDS), Mahamadou Issoufou, was charged with financial crimes. The PNDS claimed the corruption charges were politically motivated. Niger, which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since its founding in 1960.

[JURIST] Judges from the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber II requested Friday that chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo provide additional information regarding his request to open a formal investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya. The judges stated that clarification and additional information was necessary to properly exercise their review function authorized under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Moreno-Ocompo’s submission to investigate the Kenyan situation is historic, in that it is the first time he has used his proprio motu power, which allows him to initiate formal investigations upon authorization by the Pre-Trial Chamber. All other investigations conducted by the prosecutor have been at the behest of state parties or the UN Security Council.
The ICC assigned three judges to the Kenyan situation in November after receiving a letter from Moreno-Ocompo in which he said that he intended to request formal authorization to initiate an investigation. The investigation may only proceed if Kenya does not conduct its own investigation into the matter, which it has thus far failed to do. Earlier in November, Moreno-Ocampo met with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to inform them of his plans to seek an investigation. Moreno-Ocampo first stated his intentions to pursue the matter in October, citing Kenya’s ratification of the Rome Statute as grounds for jurisdiction. In August, Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for an independent tribunal with international support and participation because “the Kenyan judiciary lacks independence,” and the necessary reforms announced by the Kenyan Cabinet in late July would be insufficient. Earlier in July, Moreno-Ocampo received and reviewed a sealed envelope sent to the ICC by former UN secretary-general and current chairman of the African Union Panel of Eminent African Personalities Kofi Annan that contained a list of suspects believed to be responsible for the violence. More than 1,000 people were killed and 500,000 displaced following allegations of fraud in the country’s presidential election.

[JURIST] Bolivian President Evo Morales on Thursday appointed 18 judges ahead of the country’s judicial elections, calling the move “the beginning of the decolonization of the judiciary.” The appointees will fill five vacancies on the country’s Supreme Court, five on the Constitutional Court, and three on the Judiciary Council, while five others were named alternates. All will serve until judicial elections are held on December 5. Though roughly 20 of 26 high-level judicial posts were unoccupied prior to the announcement, the move has drawn criticism from Morales’s opponents who fear it jeopardizes the judiciary’s independence. The Bolivian National Congress passed legislation last week authorizing Morales to appoint judicial officials on an interim basis until the election.
Popular election of high-level judicial officials is required under the country’s new constitution, which went into effect last February after being approved via referendum in January 2009. In October 2008, the Bolivian National Congress ratified the proposed reforms after Morales agreed not to run for re-election in 2014. In August 2008, Morales won a confidence referendum, which he personally proposed in a bid to legitimize his campaign for the constitutional changes.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday that the state of Louisiana must issue a revised birth certificate for the adopted child of a same-sex couple showing both fathers’ names. In 2006, Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith adopted their child in New York, where unmarried couples can legally adopt. The child was born in Louisiana, and the state refused to issue a birth certificate naming both fathers. The appeals court held that Louisiana is required to give full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree, upholding the judgment of the district court. The appeals court described the weight of precedent in favor of the parents:here is virtually universal acknowledgment that Louisiana owes full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree and must recognize that the Adoptive Parents are legal parents. Numerous authorities hold that a state must afford out-of-state adoption decrees full faith and credit. The parental rights and status of the Adoptive Parents, as adjudicated by the New York court, are not confined within that state’s borders and do not cease to exist at Louisiana’s borders.Adar and Smith were represented by Lambda Legal, which praised the court’s unanimous decision.Lambda Legal successfully argued a similar case in 2007, when the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that would have prevented the state from recognizing adoptions by gay parents that were finalized in other US or foreign jurisdictions. Same-sex adoptive parents have recently been involved in numerous legal battles. In 2008, a Florida trial court judge ruled that a Florida statute preventing same-sex couples from adopting children was unconstitutional. Also that year, voters in Arkansas approved a ballot measure prohibiting gays, lesbians, and other unmarried cohabiting couples from becoming either foster or adoptive parents.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York announced at a hearing Thursday he is not ready to rule on a proposed class action settlement in a copyright suit over Google’s book-scanning initiative. Judge Denny Chin heard arguments from both sides on whether the settlement adequately protects the rights of publishers and authors and whether it violates antitrust law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the proposed settlement fails to adequately protect the privacy interests of readers, stating:
Because the settlement does not contain any privacy protections for users, Google’s system will be able to monitor which books users search for, which pages of the books they read and how long they spend on each page. Google could then combine information about readers’ habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive “digital dossier” that would be highly tempting and possibly vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.Chin did not indicate when a ruling can be expected.Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest urging to court to reject the settlement due to copyright and antitrust concerns. The case originated when two lawsuits were brought against Google by the Authors Guild, a group seeking to preserve copyright protection for authors, and by other plaintiffs including the Association of American Publishers (AAP), McGraw-Hill, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster. Under the terms of the original settlement agreement, which was reached in October 2008, Google would pay $125 million to authors and publishers of copyrighted works. In return, Google would be allowed to display online up to 20 percent of the total pages of a copyrighted book, and would offer users an opportunity to purchase the remainder of any viewed book. In a separate case, a French court ruled in December that Google violated French copyright law through its book-scanning initiative.

[JURIST] Niger President Mamadou Tandja was taken hostage on Thursday in an apparent coup attempt by dissident army officials, leaving at least three Nigerien soldiers dead. The opposition forces invaded the presidential palace with machine guns during a meeting of government ministers and kidnapped Tandja along with half of his cabinet. The attack comes six months after a referendum was passed abolishing presidential term limits and allowing Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger’s opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution’s adoption. The international community also responded to the supposedly invalid referendum by freezing non-humanitarian aid from Western countries and suspending Niger from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The coup has been condemned by both ECOWAS and the African Union (AU).
Several opposition leader were arrested after the parties pledged to oppose Tandja’s new constitution, which also allowed the president to appoint one third of the members of a newly-created senate, and establish a media-monitoring position that would have the authority to jail reporters thought to present a threat to the country. In September, members of the opposition parties said that police had detained 30 former opposition lawmakers, allegedly at the behest of Tandja. The 30 former members of parliament were arrested on charges of embezzlement, but were likely being targeted for their dissidence, as they refused to recognize Tandja’s expansion of powers. One week later, Nigerien opposition leader of the Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism (PNDS), Mahamadou Issoufou, was charged with financial crimes. The PNDS claimed the corruption charges were politically motivated. Issoufou, who is barred from leaving the country, has been released on bail. Niger, which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since its founding in 1960.