Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] US Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Glenn Fine and FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni testified Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties regarding governmental abuse of National Security Letters (NSLs). Committee members were angered by the FBI’s use of “exigent letters,” which lack any statutory authority, as a means by which to circumvent proper NSL protocol. Their appearance follows the January release of a DOJ report that documented hundreds of instances of FBI officials employing the tactic to improperly gain access to personal records. House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI) condemned the practice, saying:
Today’s hearing showed that the FBI broke the law on telephone records privacy and the General Counsel’s Office, headed by Valerie Caproni, sanctioned it and must face consequences. I call upon FBI Director Mueller to take immediate action to punish those who violated the rules, including firing them from the agency. This must include the FBI Office of General Counsel, headed by Valerie Caproni, which the IG testified today had “approved continued use” of exigent letters and “provided legal advice that was inconsistent with” federal law.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed similar disappointment for what it called “blatant and systematic abuse,” and pushed for swift reform.Fine previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September that the FBI had significantly understated the number of NSL requests from 2003 to 2006. Fine noted that FBI officials had “devoted significant time, energy, and resources to correcting its errors,” but that it was “too early to definitively state whether the FBI’s efforts have eliminated the problems.” The FBI began the practice of allowing supervisors to authorize collection of phone records on the basis of emergency situations shortly after the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001. The collection of telephone records on the basis of non-existent emergencies is a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

[JURIST] Nine Afghan witnesses have claimed that they were held and tortured in a secret US prison at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, according to a BBC report Thursday. The witnesses say that they were allegedly captured by American forces and taken to a secret location where they were abused and interrogated, then later transported to an official detention facility in Parwan, a new prison recently opened at the edge of Bagram Air Base. Torture allegations include sleep deprivation, disorientation, beating, and humiliation tactics. The report comes a few weeks after US President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to the base in Afghanistan. The new US prison has room for 1,400 detainees, is part of the Obama administration’s wider efforts to improve its Afghan detainee system, and will eventually be controlled by the Afghan government later this year. Rights groups have previously called on the Obama administration to make sure its detention policy conforms to international law. Despite the alleged witness accounts of torture, the US government continues to deny the existence of secret prisons in Afghanistan.
Alleged prisoner abuse linked to the war on terror in Afghanistan has received international attention. Last week, a retired Canadian military officer who served in Afghanistan said that Canadian soldiers believed that prisoners may have been abused after being transferred to prison facilities in Afghanistan. Human rights groups have also criticized military procedures in the country. Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed habeas corpus petitions on behalf of four detainees held at Bagram Air Base, claiming that none of the men has engaged in hostile behavior directed at the US, nor are they members of groups that purport to do so. In January, the US Department of Defense released a list of names of 645 prisoners detained at Bagram in response to a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU last September. Prisoners at Bagram have launched previous habeas corpus challenges in US courts but thus far have been less successful than those held at Guantanamo Bay.

[JURIST] Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski testified Wednesday before the Senate Commerce Committee that the agency will move ahead with its National Broadband Plan despite a recent court ruling that it lacks the power to enforce net neutrality. Net neutrality, which is unanimously supported by the FCC’s commissioners, was thought essential to the goal of an open flow of information over the Internet regardless of the amount of revenue generated by the information. Genachowski said that the FCC’s actions, as laid out in the 2010 Broadband Action Agenda will, “protect America’s global competitiveness and help deliver the extraordinary benefits of broadband to all Americans.” The roadmap, he continued, falls within the framework of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended in 1996 and will be, “rooted in a sound legal foundation, designed to promote investment, innovation, competition, and consumer interests.”
The FCC announced last week that it would move forward with the plan despite the ruling. The FCC sent the plan to Congress for approval last month, seeking approval to enact regulations to update the communications infrastructure in the US and make broadband service available to millions more Americans. Telecommunications companies Verizon, AT&T and Comcast argue that net neutrality would inhibit their ability to effectively manage Internet traffic. Under the National Broadband plan, the FCC hopes to provide broadband access as broadly as possible, including to at least one public institution in every community and to first responders. Other notable goals of the plan include providing 100 million households with affordable 100 megabits-per-second internet service and ensuring that all children are literate in digital technology by the time they leave high school.

[JURIST] The Ukrainian government must ensure accountability for human rights violations, Amnesty International (AI) urged in a report Wednesday. AI addressed newly-elected President Viktor Yanukovych, calling on him to bring Ukrainian laws and practices in line with international human rights standards. Among the recommendations are establishing an investigatory agency to look into complaints of human rights violations against police officers as well as unannounced visits to prisons to deter improper treatment of prisoners. AI also urged Ukraine to record and monitor incidents of racially motivated crimes and to create a fair asylum system. The Ukrainian government responded Thursday that it would follow the recommendations. Deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential administration Anna German assured AI that the president was in control of “the promotion and unconditional protection of human rights.”
Yanukovych was inaugurated in February after former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko dropped a lawsuit contesting the election results, in which she alleged widespread voter fraud. AI has recently urged other countries to investigate human rights abuses. Last month, AI issued a report alleging that Kazakhstan’s government was failing to curb torture by law enforcement officers. The group also joined other human rights organizations in calling for an inquiry into the UK role in torture during the war on terror.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Wednesday ordered the release of a 91-page government proffer outlining evidence in the government’s case against former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. According to the proffer, Blagojevich and his staff engaged in several schemes by which they hoped to personally gain from Blagojevich’s role as governor. Specifically, prosecutors describe how Blagojevich tried to sell the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, made appointments based on anticipated campaign contributions, and took kickbacks from a number of companies. The prosecution argues in the proffer that the evidence presented in the proffer is admissible in court against the former governor. The document was sought by several news organizations.
Last month, Blagojevich pleaded not guilty to eight amended corruption charges. Last year, Blagojevich pleaded not guilty to 16 felony counts, including wire fraud, attempted extortion, racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, and making false statements. In January 2009, the Illinois State Senate voted unanimously to convict Blagojevich of abuse of power and remove him from office. Blagojevich is the first Illinois governor to be impeached and removed from office. Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were initially arrested in December 2008 on allegations that they had conspired to sell the Senate seat left vacant by Obama.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the government has not ruled out prosecuting certain high-profile terror suspects in civilian court in New York City. During a hearing on oversight of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the government is still considering trying several high-level terror suspects, including alleged 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Admitting that finding a proper venue for civilian trials outside the Southern District of New York could pose difficulties, Holder said he had compiled a list of other possibly appropriate venues. Holder said he has taken safety and logistical concerns under advisement and that the DOJ will be ready to decide where to try the suspects “in a number of weeks.” Holder also reiterated the Obama administration’s goal to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as quickly as possible. He said that the facility could not be closed until funds have been secured to purchase an alternate site in Illinois to which the remaining detainees will be transferred. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the administration for its insistence on trying the suspects in civilian courts, but criticized Holder for saying the government will continue to hold particularly dangerous detainees without charges.
Late last month, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed retired Navy Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald as the convening authority for military commissions, leading to speculation that the Obama administration was planning to try the 9/11 conspirators in a military trial. Last month, Holder defended his decision to try the suspected terrorists in civilian court. The ACLU expressed support for Holder’s decision. Earlier in March, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. That release came just days after reports that White House advisers were considering recommending that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system. Holder announced that the alleged conspirators would face civilian criminal trials rather than military tribunals late last year.

[JURIST] Italy’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the country’s ban on same-sex marriage. After hearing arguments from several same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses, courts in Trento and Venice asked the high court to resolve whether provisions in the Italian Civil Code banning same-sex marriage conflict with Articles 2 and 117 of the Italian Constitution. Following a closed session Wednesday morning, the court issued a brief statement declaring the question ineligible with regard to Articles 2 and 117 and unfounded with relation to Articles 3 and 29. The court is expected to issue a detailed judgment soon.
In 2007, Italy’s Cabinet approved a controversial proposal to grant a number of legal rights to unmarried couples, including those of the same sex. The proposal, harshly criticized by the country’s justice minister and bishop, ultimately failed. Italy is one of few Western European nations that does not offer legal recognition to same-sex couples. Most recently, the Portugese Parliament legalized same-sex marriage in January. Prior to that, the Swedish Parliament enacted similar legislation in April 2009.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Wednesday called on the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) to end prison segregation based on HIV status. The ACLU and HRW jointly produced a report, which concluded that the prisoners face fundamental discrimination which amounts to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners,” including:
involuntary disclosure of HIV status to family, staff and other prisoners; loss of liberty by assignment to higher security prisons; denial of work, program and re-entry opportunities; and policies that promote, rather than combat, fear, prejudice and even violence against persons living with HIV. These and other conditions documented in this report go well beyond discrimination. ADOC responded by saying that the policy is necessary for the safety and protection of the inmates and guards and has resulted in a “near zero” rate of new HIV infections within the Alabama prison system since 2005. HIV-positive inmates are restricted in receiving rehabilitative programs such as in-prison jobs, education, faith-based or honor dorms, and reentry programs. HRW claims that prison rape is systemic, prevalent, and under-reported, and that there is no evidence that segregating prisoners with HIV reduces the transmission of HIV within prisons. Alabama is currently the only state that keeps a strict quarantine on HIV-positive inmates. South Carolina has a similar policy for housing but allows commingling for activities. In March, Mississippi ended its segregation program, after extending educational and vocational training to HIV-positive inmates in 2001. In 1990, the ACLU, on behalf of HIV-positive prisoners, sued to force Mississippi to provide proper medical care. HRW has also accused the federal Department of Homeland Security of providing inadequate medical care to HIV-positive immigration detainees.

[JURIST] The Argentine relatives of Spanish citizens killed during the Spanish Civil War asked an Argentine federal court on Wednesday to open a judicial investigation into human rights violations committed during the early years of the Francisco Franco regime. The complainants contend that their case, alleging the regime’s responsibility for the execution of their relatives, can be heard in Argentina’s courts through universal jurisdiction. They also hope to add to their complaint any other cases involving disappearances or killings committed during Franco’s regime. Local human rights groups, including the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, the Argentine League for Human Rights and the Peace and Justice Service have joined the complainants in support of the investigation. If the Argentine federal court decides to take the case, it will be the first time an Argentine court invokes universal jurisdiction for crimes committed in another country.
The request for a judicial probe in Argentina is a reaction to the Spanish Supreme Court’s decision to charge National Court judge Baltasar Garzon with abuse of power for his investigation of war crimes during the Franco regime. The indictment has sparked international outrage and massive protests in Spain. Last week, Garzon appealed the indictment. Garzon alleged that the indictment is politically motivated, compromises judicial independence, and seeks to impose a specific interpretation of a 1977 law granting amnesty for political crimes committed under Franco.

[JURIST] The Arizona House approved a bill Tuesday that would establish one of the strictest illegal immigration policies in the nation. The bill would criminalize being in the US without proper documentation and would give law enforcement officers increased ability to require individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants to provide proof of their legal status. The proposal has been heavily criticized by immigrant rights groups. Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network condemned the bill as “the most anti-immigrant legislation the country has seen in a generation.” The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to be approved and sent to Governor Jan Brewer, who will likely approve the final version.
In 2008, Arizona voters defeated a ballot measure dealing with illegal immigrants. The initiative would have revoked the business licenses of employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and would have strengthened penalties for identity theft. More illegal immigrants enter the US through Arizona’s border than through any other state, and citizens have expressed frustration with the federal government’s failure to prevent illegal immigration.

[JURIST] A Chinese Intermediate People’s Court in Chongqing on Wednesday sentenced former deputy police chief and high-ranking judicial official Wen Qiang to death. Wen was convicted of accepting bribes, protecting criminal gangs, rape, and being unable to justify his large amount of personal assets. The court’s verdict stated that from 1996 to 2009 Wen accepted 12 million yuan in bribes, or approximately $1.76 million. Wen was also found guilty of protecting five organized crime gangs in Chongqing and raping a university student in 2007. The verdict stated that Wen would be stripped of his political rights for life, and his personal property would be confiscated. Wen is the highest-ranking official to be charged in the corruption probe in Chongqing. Wen’s wife, Zhou Xiaoya, was convicted of taking advantage of her husband’s position and accepting bribes of 4.49 million yuan and faces eight years in jail.
Wen’s conviction comes amid China’s continuing attempt to eradicate government corruption. In March, the Hebei Province People’s High Court upheld a life sentence for former vice president of China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC), Huang Songyou, who had been convicted of bribery and embezzlement. Earlier that month, SPC president Wang Shengjun called for increased efforts to fight corruption in the country’s court system. In January, the SPC announced new anti-corruption rules in an effort to increase public confidence in the rule of law. In October, two Chongqing courts sentenced six individuals to death for their connections with organized crime gangs.

[JURIST] The Cabinet of India has approved the Prevention of Torture Bill in an effort to move closer to international human rights standards. The bill, which experienced long delays before being passed last week, will now be introduced to the Indian Parliament. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh strongly supports the bill in order to move the country closer to complying with the UN Convention Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by expanding Indian law to define torture, among other things. India remains among the small number of nations that has not ratified the treaty. The bill was introduced more than a year before it was passed. Many Cabinet members feared political backlash, as the public strongly supports actions taken against terrorists. Despite the passing of the bill, human groups believe that India still has a long way to go to prevent torture in the country.
Last month, an Indian court heard closing arguments in the trial of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, accused of participating in the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Kasab claims that he confessed to the crimes in February 2009 after being tortured by police. In December, Kasab withdrew his confession in an Indian court, claiming he was tortured and framed by police. Kasab originally pleaded not guilty in May, but interrupted his trial in July to confess and change his plea to guilty.

[JURIST] Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Tuesday that Georgia will join 18 other states in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted health care bill. The lawsuit was originally filed last month in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida. McCollum issued a statement welcoming Georgia to the judicial efforts, reiterating the states’ belief that the health care bill is unconstitutional, and stating plans to take the suit to the Supreme Court if necessary:
We welcome Georgia to our efforts to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens as well as the sovereignty of our states. The federal government cannot mandate that all citizens buy qualifying health care coverage or be forced to pay a tax penalty – this is unconstitutional. We will aggressively pursue this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom. The 18 other states involved in the suit are Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, and Arizona.Georgia joins the suit after Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced last week that Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona would be joining the suit. Among the allegations in the complaint are violations of Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution as well as the commerce clause. Last month, Idaho Governor CL Otter signed a bill barring the federal mandate to purchase health insurance. Virginia Governor Bob McDonald has indicated that he will sign a similar bill recently passed by the Virginia legislature. Also in March, President Barack Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act into law, which addressed concerns raised by the original bill, including provisions to help uninsured Americans pay for coverage, concerns over the effects to Medicare, and lowering the penalty for not buying insurance.

[JURIST] The Nebraska Legislature voted 44-5 on Tuesday to approve the Abortion Pain Prevention Act prohibiting an abortion at or past 20 weeks. The law is based on medical evidence that allegedly indicates a fetus can feel pain following that point and goes beyond the previous state law that prohibited abortions at approximately 24 weeks based on the fetus’s ability to live outside the womb. The legislation allows a patient or the father of a fetus to sue a doctor for actual damages when the act is violated. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed the legislation the same day along with another bill approved Monday that would require health care professionals to determine if a woman seeking the abortion had been pressured into the procedure and would also require them to assess the woman for additional risk factors that could lead to mental or physical complications.
The Abortion Pain Prevention Act makes Nebraska the first state to prohibit an abortion based on the idea that a fetus can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. The Nebraska laws join recent anti-abortion laws passed in Oklahoma, which prohibit abortions performed because of the gender of the fetus, protect medical employees who refuse to participate in procedures such as abortion based on religious beliefs, and regulate the use of RU-486, or mifepristone, a chemical used in abortion procedures. Advocacy groups have criticized the Oklahoma laws and promised to challenge them in court.

[JURIST] Zimbabwe’s government on Wednesday declared void a law mandating that indigenous people have majority ownership in all businesses valued at over $500,000. The law took effect last month, but the country’s stock market has since fallen 10 percent, causing concern that the law would drive away potential investors. The majority of firms within Zimbabwe that meet the $500,000 threshold are banks and mining companies, and shares in mining companies have fallen 20 percent since the law’s enactment. The decrease in stock value is another obstacle for a country in dire economic straits, including an inflation rate that has been as high as 231,000,000 percent. A spokesperson for Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai indicated that the law, while void, will be reexamined as the government looks for the best way forward.
Critics of the law have compared it to the land reform program passed under the Robert Mugabe administration in 2000, which resulted in the government seizure of farm land from white farmers. In March, white farmers displaced by Zimbabwe’s land reform program announced an intention to seize Zimbabwean government property in South Africa pursuant to the judgment of the Southern African Development Community Tribunal (SADC Tribunal). In January, the Zimbabwe High Court ruled that it is not bound by a decision of the SADC Tribunal that ordered the state to halt the land reform program for its discriminatory nature. Mugabe has faced harsh criticism for the program, which has sought to redistribute white-owned land among the nation’s indigenous farmers. In February 2006, the Zimbabwean land minister said that there are no white farmers operating legally in Zimbabwe. The government has appropriated some 4,000 farms through the program.

[JURIST] Interim Kyrgyz leader Roza Otunbayeva said Wednesday that ousted president Kurmanbek Bakiyev should stand trial for the violent protests that erupted in Kyrgyzstan last week. The protests, prompted in part by a drastic increase in utility costs, led to at least 84 deaths and many more injuries. It is not yet clear whether the interim government will seek to have Bakiyev arrested or prosecuted. While Bakiyev has not formally announced whether he will resign, he has indicated that he is willing to cooperate with the interim government to bring a peaceful resolution to the current political tensions.
On Tuesday, Kyrgyzstan’s interim government announced that the country’s highest court will be suspended until a permanent government is established. Roza Otunbayeva launched the interim government last week after the violent protests 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.” Ban depicted some recent events in Kyrgyzstan as “troubling,” including the shutdown of an opposition newspaper, a police raid on a local television station that resulted in the station being taken off the air, and the confiscation of computers from a video web portal based on allegations of pirated software use.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Tuesday ordered a southern Mississippi school district to end its practice of allowing students to transfer from their assigned schools and classroom groupings, resulting in a segregated school system. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) initially brought a lawsuit to enforce a 1970 order against the Walthall County School District that prohibited the district from racially segregating its schools. According to court filings, schools in the district had allowed about 300 students each year, a majority of them white, to transfer to a single school outside of their assigned area, leaving other schools in the district with a disproportionate number of black students. Additionally, some schools had assembled classrooms along racial lines. Judge Tom Lee’s order requires the school district to change its transfer policy to allow a transfer only where the student has provided a compelling justification for the transfer and to revise its classroom assignment protocols. Lee’s order stipulated that the school district must use a software program that randomly allocates students to classrooms to avoid segregation. School officials did not file any opposition in the case and have agreed to follow the judge’s order.
Previously, the Walthall County School District had allowed white students to transfer from schools located in Tylertown and attend the Salem Attendance Center about 10 miles away. The Tylertown schools host around 1,700 students with a makeup of about 75 percent African American students. More than 550 students go to the Salem Attendance Center, and approximately 66 percent of those students are white. The US Supreme Court originally struck down school segregation in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Tuesday resumed the war crimes trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. The proceedings commenced with the prosecution calling its first witness, Bosnian Muslim Ahmet Zulic. Zulic provided testimony concerning the 1992 attack on his village of Sanski Most at the beginning of the Bosnian war. Zulic testified that his father was burned alive by Serb insurgents and that he witnessed Serbs force 20 Muslim men to dig their own graves before executing them. The prosecution alleges that Karadzic was responsible for coordinating the invasion. Zulic has has previously testified about the general political situation in Sanski Most and about the brutal conditions, beatings, and killings in the detention facilities in which he was held, including in the trial of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Zulic will be cross-examined by Karadzic, who is serving as his own defense counsel. The prosecution’s 11 remaining witness will take the stand in the coming weeks.
Last week, the ICTY dismissed Kardzic’s latest motion to delay court proceedings, in which he argued that there had been a violation of his right to a fair hearing because the court had rejected previous evidentiary challenges. In March, Karadzic lost another motion to postpone his war crimes trial on charges related to crimes committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. Karadzic claimed that a February ruling increasing the remuneration for his defense lawyers should also give him extra time to prepare for his case. Karadzic is defending himself against 11 counts, including genocide and murder.

[JURIST] International rights organizations voiced concern Tuesday about a draft media law the Fijian government is slated to approve in the near future. The Media Industry Development Decree 2010 includes several provisions that could result in the imprisonment of journalists for up to five years and stiff fines. Pacific Researcher for Amnesty International (AI) Apolosi Bose criticized the legislation, saying, “he Fijian government is giving itself a license to imprison or bankrupt its critics. The decree will further restrain the media from reporting government and military abuses, for fear of reprisals through a kangaroo court.” International Federation of Journalists General Secretary Aidan White said last week:
It is not surprising that Fiji’s regime says it will drop its emergency regulations once the media decree is adopted. The decree is clearly focused on the regime retaining control and entrenching its highly oppressive restrictions, not only on the media but on members of the public who might wish to express dissenting views.Of particular concern is provision 21, which bars content that “(a) is against the public interest or order; (b) is against national interest; (c) offends against good taste or decency; or (d) creates communal discord,” and provisions 25 and 26, which penalize media representatives who fail to provide documentation or information requested or refuse searches and seizures for which law enforcement authorities have obtained a warrant. Failure to adhere to provisions could result in fines of up $500,000 for a mass media institutions, and fines of up to $100,000 for editors, publishers, and journalists and up to fives years imprisonment. The tribunal overseeing implementation of the Media Industry Development Decree will be led by a presidential appointee, casting doubt on that entity’s independence. The law is expected to be approved during a Cabinet meeting in the near future.Fiji has been in turmoil since former president Ratu Josefa Iloilo suspended the constitution last April and revoked the appointment of all judicial officers after an appeals court ruling declaring the appointment of the military government following the 2006 coup unconstitutional. Bainimarama took control in the wake of the coup, which ousted former Fijian prime minister Laisenia Qarase. More recently, the Commonwealth of Nations suspended Fiji from its organization in September because it failed to meet the September 1 deadline for reinstating a constitutional democracy and opening a national dialogue. The Pacific Islands Forum suspended Fiji’s membership in the 16-nation bloc in May after Fiji’s current military government failed to meet a May 1 deadline to schedule elections. Bainimarama announced plans in July to establish a new constitution by September 2013. In its 2009 Human Rights Report on Fiji, the US State Department noted deteriorating conditions in the areas of judicial independence and media freedom.

[JURIST] The Spanish Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a National Court decision suspending an investigation into a 2002 Israeli air force bombing in the Gaza Strip. The attack killed 15 people, including 14 civilians. The investigation was ordered in January 2009 after a National Court judge determined that the alleged bombing merited judicial investigation, but was suspended by the National Court in June. The Supreme Court’s decision puts a definitive end to the controversial investigation.
The decision to suspend the investigation overruled a May 2009 order by National Court judge Fernando Andreu to continue the investigation despite legal challenges. The court’s decision to suspend the investigation was based on a determination that the court lacked jurisdiction because Israel was already investigating the incident. Spain’s use of universal jurisdiction in similar investigations has been criticized in the past, leading to the passage of legislation to limit the scope of universal jurisdiction to cases in which the victims of a crime include Spaniards or the alleged perpetrators were in Spain.