Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Krupski v. Costa Crociere on the appropriate construction of “mistake” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). The rule permits an amended complaint to “relate back” for statute of limitation purposes when the amendment corrects a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the rule does not apply to substitution of the correct defendant for a related corporation with a similar name where the plaintiff has imputed knowledge of the identity of the added defendant prior to filing suit. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rule should apply when substituting the correct defendant. Counsel for the respondent argued that there can be no mistake where the plaintiff knows all the facts. There is a circuit split on the issue.

[JURIST] Five international Muslim Brotherhood (MB) members will be tried in an Egyptian criminal court on charges of money laundering, Attorney General Abdul Magid Mahmoud announced Wednesday. The members, including Muslim Brotherhood International Secretary General Ibrahim Munir, were referred to the Supreme State Security Emergency Court for trial. The five members have been accused of laundering money through a British-based Islamic charity in order to fund the MB movement, which has been banned in Egypt. In a statement, MB media spokesman Mohamed Morsy said the charges are a move by the Egyptian government to escalate the tense relationship between the two: At a time when all opposition factors in Egypt including the MB are uniting in the call for the elimination of the oppressive ‘Emergency Law’, the ruling regime has once again demonstrated its inability to interact with its people and practice democracy. We, the MB, will continue the path of promoting peace and will continue calling for reform through the regulatory and legitimate constitutional channels in which we have always adhered to. None of the ruling regime’s measures will deter us. The Egyptian government has often used the country’s emergency laws to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals it considered a threat to state security.
Earlier this month, an Egyptian criminal court ordered 16 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who were arrested in February and charged with plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government, released on bail. In the past, Egypt has also used the emergency laws extensively against other opposition parties. In July, the trial of 26 individuals with alleged ties to Hezbollah was transferred to a court established under the emergency laws. In February 2009, a military court utilized the laws during a trial in which it sentenced opposition leader Magdy Ahmed Hussein to two years in prison. The emergency laws have been in effect continuously since the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and were renewed most recently in May 2008.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Monday urged Kyrgyzstan’s interim government to begin a comprehensive investigation into the violence between April 6 and 8 that resulted in the overthrow of president Kurmanbek Bakiyev. After conducting witness interviews and examining photo and video evidence, HRW concluded that the violence was fueled by the actions of both security forces and demonstrators and called on the government to officially request assistance from the international community to “help to safeguard against accusations of bias” in the probe. HRW claims that authorities committed several violations of international law, which stipulates that lethal force may only be used as a last resort, citing in particular the alleged shooting of an unarmed man seeking to negotiate. The interim government is currently planning to try members of Bakiyev’s family and administration on charges that include corruption and human rights violations.
Kyrgyz interim leader Roza Otunbayeva said last week that Bakiyev should stand trial for the recent violence. Despite the pledge to bring Bakiyev and his allies to justice, so far only former defense minister Baktybek Kaliyev has been arrested. It is believed that Bakiyev is currently in Belarus, and interim officials have said they will seek extradition to bring him before their courts. The protests, prompted in part by a drastic increase in utility costs, led to at least 84 deaths and many more injuries. Earlier this month, Otunbayeva launched the interim government after the violence forced Bakiyev to flee the capital. The protests came just one week after UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Kyrgyzstan to protect all forms of human rights, including “free speech and freedom of the media.”

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in Perdue v. Kentucky that calculation of an attorney’s fee based on the lodestar may be increased due to superior performance, but only in extraordinary circumstances. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s enhancement of attorney’s fees in a class action suit, finding that even though factors such as quality of performance and results obtained are already included in the lodestar calculation, they may appropriately be considered to enhance the fees. In reversing the lower court decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule. But as we have also said in prior cases, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient; factors subsumed in the lodestar calculation cannot be used as a ground for increasing an award above the lodestar; and a party seeking fees has the burden of identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified. Because the District Court did not apply these standards, we reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Breyer would not have reached the question of whether the fees were appropriately calculated in this case. Had he reached that question, he would have upheld the lower court’s decision.The lodestar calculation is used by courts in awarding attorney’s fees and is the product of reasonable hours worked and a reasonable hourly rate. The class action suit was filed on behalf of 3,000 children in the Georgia foster care system. After reaching a settlement, plaintiffs requested more than $14 million in attorney’s fees. Half that amount was based on the lodestar, and the other half was an enhancement for superior work and results.

[JURIST] Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced Wednesday that he is prepared to negotiate with protesters once they cease their illegal conduct. Government spokesperson Panitan Wattanyagorn stated that the prime minister is willing to speak with protesters regarding an election and amending the constitution once protesters abide by the law. Anti-government protesters, known as red shirts, have been associated with a series on unlawful acts, including blocking a train carrying military vehicles and fortifying their base area with tire barriers and homemade weapons. Their camp, which occupies Bangkok’s business district, has forced businesses to close and suffer financial losses. Unidentified attackers have also caused fire damage after launching rocket-propelled grenades at a fuel depot near an airport. The red shirts claim that Abhisit came to power illegitimately and that he should resign and call for elections.
The protests are currently in their sixth week and have led to an increasingly hostile political climate in Thailand. On Tuesday, Amnesty International (AI) called for an investigation into the deaths of 25 people during recent anti-government protests. Earlier this month, a Thai court issued arrest warrants for at least 17 high-profile protesters, including top red shirt officials. Abhisit hopes that the arrest warrants will encourage the protesters to disperse. Abhisit was forced to declare a state of emergency earlier this month after a Thai court refused to issue an injunction against the protesters. The protesters are supporters of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was removed from power during a 2006 military coup. Thaksin was convicted in absentia on corruption charges in October 2008. Despite the conviction, the Cambodian government refused to extradite the ousted prime minister to face a two-year prison sentence.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he will take into account a potential nominee’s position on individual liberty, including women’s rights, when nominating a Supreme Court justice. Speaking at a meeting with Senate leaders, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been “a hugely contentious issue in our country for a very long time” and explained how his approach to choosing a nominee will take reproductive rights into account:
I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction. … I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights. And that’s going to be something that’s very important to me, because I think part of what our core … constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.Obama met with Senate leaders from both parties in an effort to pave the way for a smooth confirmation for his eventual nominee. The meeting on Wednesday included Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and ranking committee Republican Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Obama said that he plans to announce his nomination by the end of May, and hopes to replicate last year’s “smooth, civil thoughtful” confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.Earlier this month, Leahy predicted that President Obama will nominate a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in time for hearings to be concluded over the summer. In a letter to Obama explaining is retirement, Stevens said that “it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next Term.” There had been much speculation about Stevens’s possible retirement, and leading candidates for his replacement reportedly include Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood. Stevens, 89, was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford and was seated in December 1975. Stevens is the court’s oldest and most senior member and has served as the leader of the court’s liberal bloc. His retirement gives Obama his second opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, following last year’s retirement of Justice David Souter and confirmation of Sotomayor.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 7-2 in Jerman v. Carlisle that a debt collector’s legal error does not qualify for the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that although the defendants violated the FDCPA by giving erroneous legal advice, they qualified for the FDCPA bona fide error defense. In reversing the decision below, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court:
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act) imposes civil liability on “debt collector” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. Section 813(c) of the Act provides that a debt collector is not liable in an action brought under the Act if she can show “the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” This case presents the question whether the “bona fide error” defense in &setc; 1692k(c) applies to a violation resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. We conclude it does not.Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito.Petitioner Karen Jerman filed an action challenging the debt collection practices of the Carlisle law firm, claiming that they violated the FDCPA when they used allegedly deceptive forms to notify her of a foreclosure on her home. Specifically, Jerman claims that defendants violated the FDCPA by representing to Jerman that her debt would be assumed valid unless she disputed the debt “in writing” even though the FDCPA does not require a written dispute.

[JURIST] Eleven Philippines policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty Wednesday to murder charges for their involvement in the November 2009 massacre that left 57 dead. The arraignment was held in Camp Bagong Diwa, which is also the headquarters of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO). The arraignment of four additional suspects was delayed until April 30 after a last minute motion was filed by their counsel. The decision to defer was made despite objections from the prosecution that the motion was a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. Several family members of the victims attended the arraignment. The family members had filed a manifestation with the court asking that the proceedings be delayed until after upcoming elections, as they fear justice can not be served under current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The court acknowledged the manifestation but still proceeded. The timing of the arraignment, as well as the pending trials of several other key suspects, has increased the concern over potential violence surrounding the May elections.
The arraignment comes just days after prosecutors dropped charges against two massacre suspects, causing accusations of political interference. Last month, a Quezon City court dismissed rebellion charges against 24 people, including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines’ semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Esmael Mangudadatu’s convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans’ group killed and buried them. In order to prove their cases against the large number of accused, the prosecution will have to rely heavily on oral testimonies that can often prove to be problematic. Following the killings, Arroyo imposed martial law and suspended habeas corpus in Maguindanao. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges.

[JURIST] A federal court in Argentina on Tuesday sentenced former president and military general Reynaldo Bignone to 25 years in prison for human rights abuses during the 1976-83 “Dirty War”. Bignone served as de facto president from 1982 to 1983 and represents the last dictator to hold power during the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983. The court found Bignone guilty of involvement in 56 cases of murder, torture, and kidnappings in one of Argentina’s largest torture centers, the Campo de Mayo military base. The court also sentenced five other retired military officers to prison terms ranging from 17 to 25 years in connection with abuses during the military regime.
Bignone went on trial in November on charges stemming from two separate federal court determinations that he should stand trial. In April 2007, Bignone was ordered to stand trial for the kidnapping of children of dissidents killed during the “Dirty War.” Bignone had already been ordered in March 2007 to stand trial on separate charges connected to the illegal arrest, torture, and killing of dissidents at secret detention centers in Buenos Aires. Earlier that same month, an Argentine federal judge ordered Bignone’s arrest for his role in the alleged abuses.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 5-3 in Conkright v. Frommert that a district court has an obligation to defer to an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan administrator’s reasonable interpretation of the terms of the plan if the plan administrator arrived at the interpretation outside the context of an administrative claim for benefits. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a district court is under no obligation to defer to an ERISA plan administrator’s interpretation and that a district court has “allowable discretion” to adopt any “reasonable” interpretation of the terms of the plan. In reversing the opinion below, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
We held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch that an ERISA plan administrator with discretionary authority to interpret a plan is entitled to deference in exercising that discretion. The question here is whether a single honest mistake in plan interpretation justifies stripping the administrator of that deference for subsequent related interpretations of the plan. We hold that it does not.Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in the consideration of the case.The case was brought by former Xerox employees who left the company in the 1980s and were later rehired. The employees challenged the method used to calculate their retirement benefits. The district court deferred to the method used by the plan administrator, but the Second Circuit reversed.

[JURIST] A spokesperson for French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Wednesday that the president is in favor of a complete public ban on the burqa and other full face veils and will be submitting a bill to parliament in May. According to spokesperson Luc Chatel, Sarkozy wants the ban to be carried out in a way that doesn’t stigmatize individuals for their religious beliefs and practices, but he feels that the veils are oppressive and harm female dignity. In addition to the bill, parliament will also be discussing a separate resolution on May 11, which will discuss ways of limiting the use of full veils. The issue has sparked debate with feminists supporting the ban because it prevents women from being forced into wearing the veils, and others questioning the proposed ban’s constitutionality. France houses the largest Muslim population in the European Union with Muslims comprising about 10 percent of the total French population.
Last month, the French Council of State advised the French government against a complete ban on full Islamic veils because it risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. France already has a partial ban that prevents public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity and also prohibits veils in public schools. Critics of the ban say the law would alienate France’s Muslim minority and violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which France is a signatory. Last month, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services, which garnered support from members of the Muslim Canadian Congress who argue that the law would not violate human rights and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society. Also last month, a Belgian parliamentary committee voted unanimously to completely ban the wearing of full veils in public. If approved, Belgium will be the first European nation to impose a nationwide restriction on traditional face-covering veils.

[JURIST] The UK Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the country’s sex offender registry requirement violates the right to privacy. The case involved an appeal filed by two convicted sex offenders who challenged the notification requirement of Section 82 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which mandates indefinite notification for any individual sentenced to 30 or more months in prison for a sex offense. The trial court ruled that Section 82 of the Act was incompatible with privacy rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court considered several issues before affirming that dismissal, including how valuable the notification requirements are for achieving the goal of lower crime, and the extent of harm to that goal if the notification requirements were subject to review. The court considered empirical evidence that, over a 21-year period, 75 percent of sex offenders in the UK were not re-convicted, and that, despite the possibility that a convicted offender may be able to prove he will not re-offend, he or she has no recourse. Lord Phillips, writing for the court, concluded:
I think that it is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified. As the courts below have observed, it is open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for review.As the Court suggested, the UK legislature will have to craft a review process for the notification requirement. It is not clear what will happen to individuals already on the notification register, and any change will be delayed until the upcoming general election has passed.Wednesday’s ruling is the second high-profile result regarding individual rights and sex offenders in the UK in the past week. On Monday, a Pakistani man, currently serving a jail term for a sex offense, won an appeal against deportation because he has a wife and child in the UK and has lived there legally for 20 years. That ruling resulted in significant public outrage, and the Home Office has indicated it will appeal the ruling. There are currently more than 24,000 individuals in the UK subject to the registry requirement, and, in the past, the government has had to reduce the sentence of some sex offenders because of prison overcrowding.

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) on Tuesday called for an investigation into the deaths of 25 people during recent anti-government protests. The group stated that it would welcome a pledge by the Thai government to “investigate promptly, effectively, and impartially the recent violence,” and urges it to “provide accountability for any violations by security forces as well as abuses by violent protesters.” The protesters, known as red shirts, claim that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva came to power illegitimately and that he should resign and call for elections. After the death toll rose to 21, the Thai army was called in on Monday to prevent the protests from spreading into Bangkok’s financial district. While AI’s statement recognized that the military’s use of force may have been justified by the fact that some of the protesters were armed with guns and grenades, the group also urged the Thai government to adhere to international principles on crowd dispersal and the use of force. Such principles dictate that law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary
The protests are currently in their fifth week and have led to an increasingly hostile political climate in Thailand. Earlier this month, a Thai court issued arrest warrants for at least 17 high-profile protesters, including top red shirt officials. Abhisit hopes that the arrest warrants will encourage the protesters to disperse. Abhisit was forced to declare a state of emergency earlier this month after a Thai court refused to issue an injunction against the protesters. The protesters are supporters of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was removed from power during a 2006 military coup. Thaksin was convicted in absentia on corruption charges in October 2008. Despite the conviction, the Cambodian government refused to extradite the ousted prime minister to face a two-year prison sentence.

[JURIST] British human rights lawyers on Monday submitted documents to a UK High Court that allege Britain allowed Afghan detainees to be tortured following their transfer to Afghanistan authorities. The documents were submitted by Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of human rights and anti-war activist Maya Evans, who is seeking a judicial inquiry into Britain’s policy for transferring detainees in Afghanistan. Evans alleges that British officials turned over al Qaeda and Taliban suspects to Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), which is believed to have used torture as a means of interrogating prisoners. The documents detail nine cases of detainee abuse, including the use of physical beatings, electrocution, and sleep deprivation. The application for review has been opposed by Secretary of State for Defence Bob Ainsworth, who has said that safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse.
Concerns over detainee abuse were first brought to light in a 2007 report by Amnesty International, which said that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was exposing terrorism detainees to risks of torture by transferring NATO-held detainees into custody of Afghanistan authorities. Amnesty’s report focused on actions by Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK, saying that the forces from those countries have been transferring terror detainees to the NDS, despite numerous reports of torture. The report prompted Evans to bring her suit seeking judicial review in 2008. The case mirrors similar allegations that Canadian military officials were complicit in the torture of detainees that were transferred to Afghanistan officials.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Dolan v. United States on whether a district court may enter a restitution order beyond the time limit prescribed in 18 USC § 3664(d)(5). The petitioner, Brian Dolan, attacked a hitchhiker and was ordered to pay restitution to his victim. He argued that the court’s restitution order came after the deadline imposed by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that “a tardy restitution order is not an invalid one.” Counsel for Dolan argued Tuesday that, “nce that 90-day period has run … the district court loses the authority to impose restitution.” Counsel for the United States argued that the court may impose restitution after the 90-day period in certain circumstances.

[JURIST] Russia’s Constitutional Court on Monday upheld the practice of trying terrorism cases in the absence of juries. Several Russian citizens had challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the country’s Criminal Procedure Code, which provided that criminal cases involving crimes under articles 205 (terrorist act), 278 (violent seizure of power or forcible retention of power) and 279 (armed rebellion) are not considered with the participation of a jury, but rather by three judges. The petitioners argued that this practice violates the right to trial by jury, which is envisaged in Russia’s Constitution. They also cited Article 55 of the Constitution, under which the country is barred from passing laws that abrogate or derogate from human rights. The Constitutional Court disagreed, finding that the constitution only guarantees jury trials in cases where the defendants could be sentenced to death. In other situations, the court said the right to trial by jury is defined by federal legislation. The court emphasized the impartiality and professionalism of the judges in Russia tasked with trying terrorism cases, noting that this would ensure fair trials for terrorism suspects.
Russia has been tightening its anti-terrorism and other national security legislation recent years, leading to concerns that some of the reforms infringe on human rights. The provision banning jury trials for terrorism suspects was approved by Russian Dmitry President Medvedev at the beginning of 2009. Also last year, a spokesperson for Medvedev announced that his administration would modify a legislative proposal that would change the definition of treason, state secrets, and espionage. Last month, Medvedev proposed amending the country’s terrorism legislation in the wake of twin suicide bombing attacks on Moscow subway stations. Literature including Mein Kampf and 34 religious books related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been banned recently under the country’s extremism laws.

[JURIST] The Chief Legal Counsel to the UN, Under-Secretary-General Patricia O’Brien, and Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sok An said Monday that the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) needs financial support from the international community. In a joint statement, O’Brien and Sok expressed concern about the financial situation of the UN-backed tribunal charged with trying alleged Khmer Rouge war criminals, but also emphasized the great success that the tribunal has had:
The ECCC has confirmed its ability to conduct complex international criminal trials to international standards, and is living up to the hope for it to be a model court. The proceedings have attracted unprecedented interest and support, as witnessed by the fact that over 30,000 Cambodians have attended the court proceedings since its inception.As of December, UN member countries had contributed nearly $77 million in support of the Khmer Rouge trials. The ECCC’s approved budget for 2010-2011 amounts to $87.1 million, of which $42.9 million is for 2010 and $44.2 million is for 2011. The international component of the ECCC budget is $65.4 million, of which $32.2 million is for 2010 and $33.2 million is for 2011.In December, the ECCC charged former Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Thirith with genocide, torture, and persecution, adding to previous charges that include war crimes and murder. Ieng Thirith, the wife of ECCC defendant Ieng Sary, served as social affairs minister for the regime. Ieng Thirith is the fourth former official to be charged with genocide. Also in December, the ECCC brought genocide charges against former head of state Khieu Samphan, former deputy leader and chief ideologist Nuon Chea, and former foreign minister Ieng Sary in connection with the same events. In November, the court heard final arguments in its first trial, that of Kaing Guek Eav, also known as “Duch.” Kaing was the first of eight ex-Khmer Rouge officials to be tried before the ECCC. Members of the Khmer Rouge allegedly killed 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979.

[JURIST] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled Tuesday that Uruguay may continue operating a pulp mill on the River Uruguay despite breaching its treaty obligations to Argentina. The ICJ found that Uruguay did not breach its substantive obligation to Argentina to protect the environment under the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay by planning to construct two pulp mills. The court did find that Uruguay had breached its procedural duties laid out in the statute by not cooperating with Argentina and the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (CARU) during the development phase and prior to the construction of the Orion (Botnia) pulp mill, but concluded that shutting down the plant or ordering damages would not be an appropriate remedy. The ruling was criticized by environmental activists but welcomed by diplomats from both Argentina and Uruguay who hoped it would help repair relations between the two countries.
The hearings for the treaty dispute began in September. Argentina claimed that pollutants from the plant were causing extreme harm to the river and surrounding environment and that Uruguay failed to obtain Argentina’s approval before starting the project. In 2007, the ICJ refused to order Argentina to prevent demonstrators protesting the plant from blocking traffic on roads and bridges into the country from Uruguay. In 2006, the ICJ denied Argentina’s request that Uruguay be ordered to stop construction on the plants.

[JURIST] The Oklahoma State Senate voted to approve five anti-abortion bills on Monday, sending three to Governor Brad Henry for his approval and returning two to the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. The first bill would prevent “wrongful life” lawsuits in which parents seek damages for a child born with a birth defect because the mother was unable to obtain an abortion. The second bill would require doctors to conduct a vaginal ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion while displaying and explaining the images. The third bill would require any facility conducting abortions to post a sign stating that it is against the law to be forced to have an abortion. Pending House approval, two additional bills would require a woman to answer 38 questions, including why she is seeking an abortion, and prohibit state health plans from covering elective abortions. Senate Republican Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee praised the bills saying, “Oklahomans have consistently voted and called for measures like these, and today we have held true to Oklahoma values.” If approved by Henry, the bills would give Oklahoma the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
Earlier this month, Henry signed three anti-abortion bills into law, prohibiting abortions performed because of the gender of the fetus, protecting medical employees who refuse to participate in procedures such as abortion based on religious beliefs, and regulating a chemical used in abortion procedures. The measures signed by the governor and the provisions of the bills passed Monday were previously included in a larger state law struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last month for violating the Oklahoma Constitution, which requires legislation to be limited to one subject. In February, an Oklahoma state court ruled that a different state law, making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender of a fetus and requiring numerous reporting requirements, also violated the state constitution’s single subject requirement. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which initially filed lawsuits against the bills, has indicated that it will challenge the constitutionality of the separated bills. Staff Attorney Stephanie Toti criticized the laws, arguing that “they violate a myriad of constitutional principles, from freedom of speech to due process to equal protection of the law.”

[JURIST] Two political parties in eastern Sudan on Tuesday accused the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) of using voter fraud and intimidation in gaining electoral victories in their region of the country during last week’s national elections. Representatives of the Beja Congress party and the Democratic Congress for East Sudan have separately accused members of the NCP of emptying of ballot boxes and compromising ballots in an effort to secure victory for their party. The Beja Congress also contend that fraud is indicated by the fact their party won only one seat on a state assembly and no seats at the national level. Reports from one electoral area have the NCP candidate winning with close to 18,000 votes compared to 839 for the eastern party candidate. Official results of the election have not yet been released by the National Election Commission, but indicators point to a strong national win by the NCP. Also on Tuesday, a representative of the US State Department commented on the elections, stating that they were not “free and fair” and that they did not meet international standards. It is expected that President Omar al-Bashir will win re-election when the results are announced.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) currently has an arrest warrant against al-Bashir charging him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC is considering whether to add an additional charge of genocide to the warrant after overturning a March 2009 decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber not to prosecute on the charge. The warrant has been controversial, with Egypt, Sudan, the African Union and others calling for the proceedings against al-Bashir to be delayed, and African Union leaders agreeing not to cooperate with the ruling. Al-Bashir is accused of systematically targeting and purging the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, three Arabic-speaking ethnic groups, under the pretext of counterinsurgency since 2003.