JURIST - Paper Chase

[JURIST] The European Union's data protection authorities wrote a letter [text, PDF] to Google Thursday asking it to delay implementation of its new privacy policy, which is supposed to take effect March 1. The EU is concerned the privacy policy, which will combine various policies of more than 60 of its products into one, may be in violation of EU laws. Google released details of its new privacy policy [corporate website] last week, saying it will make it easier to share user information between different products, as well as enhancing search engine capabilities. Google also claims the policy will be simpler and easier for users to read and understand. Although the EU has not pinpointed which areas of the policy it is concerned with, it would like a chance to investigate the terms before they take effect. Google responded to the letter in statements Friday, stating that it had already briefed data protection agencies on the new policy and giving no indication that it plans to delay implementation.

Google responded Wednesday to concerns [JURIST report] of US Congressmen about the new policy as well. It responded to 11 questions posed in a letter sent by the Congressmen [JURIST report] last week. Some topics of concern addressed by Google included assurance that no new types of data will be collected, reasons supporting data-sharing between Google products and an explanation of how data can be deleted by users once their accounts are closed. It also assured that it will comply with conditions of its 2011 settlement with the FTC [JURIST report], in which Google was charged with breach of consumer privacy rights and misleading consumers during the launch of Google Buzz, a social networking site.

[JURIST] Lawyers for two Guantanamo prisoners accused of planning the 9/11 attacks [JURIST backgrounders] asked the Pentagon Thursday to extend the filing deadline for pre-trial motions. There are currently two prisoners requesting extension, and they both cite the recent mail review controversy as to why they have been unable to meet the current deadline. Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz, the lawyer appointed to represent Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsaw,i claims that the new restrictions on legal mail between attorneys and their clients prevented Ruiz from meeting the deadline. The attorneys for Ramzi Binalshibh andal-Hawsawi are both asking for extensions [Miami Herald report]. Binalshibh is asking for a six-month extension, and al-Hawasawi is asking for a four-month extension.

In January, Chief Defense Counsel for Guantanamo war crimes tribunals, Colonel J.P. Colwell, ordered attorneys under his command not to comply with rules [JURIST report] requiring military officials to review all legal correspondence between lawyers and the detainees accused of involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks. Navy rear Adm. David Woods [official profile] issued the new rule in December. Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo have previously raised concerns with practices used at the prison. Last November, lawyers complained specifically about the infringement on attorney-client privilege [JURIST report] in a letter directed to the attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs.

[JURIST] War crimes suspect Leon Mugesera was charged with genocide planning, incitement and distribution of arms Thursday in a Kigali court in Rwanda. He was deported from Canada to Rwanda [JURIST report] nine days ago, following a 16-year battle in the Canadian court system in which Mugesera attempted to stay in Canada. The Quebec Superior Court ruled last month [judgment, in French] that it did not have jurisdiction over the case. Mugesera is facing charges relating to a speech he made [BBC report] when he was a member of the ruling Hutu party in Rwanda in 1992. His speech, in which he equated Tutsis to cockroaches who needed to be exterminated, allegedly led to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide [JURIST news archive], in which 800,000 individuals, mainly Tutsis, were killed. Mugesera asked the Rwandan judge at his appearance Thursday for a month or two to search for a lawyer and was granted a stay until April 2.

The Quebec Superior Court's decision to deport Mugesera was delayed one last time in January. In a final attempt to stay in Canada, he appealed to the UN Committee Against Torture [official website], asking it to investigate his case and determine whether he would face inhumane torture if he returned to Rwanda. While Mugesera asked the court to hold off ruling [Global Post report] until the committee could complete an investigation, the court ruled the following Monday to deport him. In 2005, a Canadian justice said Mugesera should not be deported unless Rwanda gave a binding promise not to pursue the death penalty [JURIST report] against him after the Canadian Supreme Court had ruled unanimously [JURIST report] that he be deported. Mugesera has been fighting deportation in Canadian court since 1995, when the Canadian government charged him with omitting material documents from his asylum application.

[JURIST] The French Commercial Tribunal [official website, in French] in Paris ruled Tuesday that Google Maps [corporate website] is anti-competitive because it is offered as a free service. The plaintiff, Bottin Cartographers [corporate website], alleged that Google provides its maps service for free, thereby undercutting competitors, in order to gain market control. The court ordered that Google must pay £415,000 to the plaintiff [Guardian report], as well as a €15,000 fine, totaling about $680,000. This is the first conviction against Google's maps service. The attorney for Bottin Cartographers said the decision "recognized the unfair and abusive character of the methods used and allocated Bottin Cartographes all it claimed." Google plans to appeal the ruling.

Many of Google's services have been called into question recently. Earlier this month, Google defended its new privacy policies to US lawmakers after 8 congressmen questioned the new policies [JURIST reports]. In August the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced that the agency had reached a $500 million settlement [JURIST report] with Google for unlawfully permitting Canadian pharmaceutical companies to advertise to and target US consumers. In July a federal judge extended settlement negotiations [JURIST report] over a 2005 copyright suit filed against Google over its Google Books [corporate website] book scanning project. Also in July another federal judge ruled that Google could appeal a decision permitting a wiretapping lawsuit [JURIST report] over Google's Street View [corporate website] service. Google was accused of violating user privacy by using WiFi networks to collect data for the service, a charge that came as a result of a multistate investigation [JURIST report] that began in June of 2010. There have been international rulings on the Street View service as well. A Swiss court ruled the service constituted a violation of privacy, while a German court ruled it did not [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The Massachusetts Appeals Court [official website] held Thursday that same-sex [JURIST news archive] couples who marry and have a baby via artificial insemination are bound by the same child custody laws [opinion] as heterosexual couples. The decision came after an appeal by Della Corte, who tried to have the parental rights of her ex-wife, Angelica Rameriez, revoked in divorce proceedings since she could never be a "husband," as defined by the Massachusetts law. The court found that even though Rameriez had no biological connection with the child and that the child was conceived before the marriage, she should still be considered a legal parent. Since the child was born after the marriage, both women should be considered legal parents. The appeals court relied heavily on a 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling that eliminated gender descriptions.

In [2003], the Supreme Judicial Court specifically noted that without the right to civil marriage, same sex couples were required to "undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage." As a result, it follows that when there is a marriage between same-sex couples, the need for that second-parent adoption to, at the very least, confer legal parentage on the nonbiological parent is eliminated when the child is born of the marriage.

Corte is reviewing the decision with her lawyer and is contemplating whether to pursue further legal action.

Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriages in 2004 and has since issued licenses to more than 16,000 same-sex couples. In March 2009, a group of Massachusetts plaintiffs who were or had been married under the state's same-sex marriage law filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the federal Defense Of Marriage Act [JURIST news archive]. Other jurisdictions have also enacted same-sex marriage laws. Currently, seven US jurisdictions recognize same-sex marriage: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Washington and New York [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] on Friday ruled [judgment, PDF] that Germany has immunity from claims brought in foreign courts by victims of the Nazi regime. The Court found that a 2008 decision by Italy's Supreme Court [JURIST report] violated Germany's sovereign rights by allowing an Italian national to seek reparations in response to his deportation in 1944. Germany appealed this decision to the ICJ and oral arguments were heard [JURIST report] in September 2011. Germany argued that allowing the ruling to stand would violate state immunity and open the floodgates to new claims. The Italian representatives alleged that the Italian court's ruling was necessary to secure compensation because all other avenues had failed. The ICJ found that this "last resort" notion was not a viable argument, because redress in international law is not based upon the availability of other manners of compensation. The ICJ would not erode state sovereignty for this action:

In so far as the argument based on the combined effect of the circumstances is to be understood as meaning that the national court should balance the different factors, assessing the respective weight, on the one hand, of the various circumstances that might justify the exercise of its jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, of the interests attaching to the protection of immunity, such an approach would disregard the very nature of State immunity.

This ruling by the ICJ is final and binding, effectively ending thousands of reparations claims against Germany.

In October 2008 the Court of Cassation awarded the damages [Corriere della Sera report, in Italian] in a case against Max Josef Milde, a German sergeant present at the Civitella attack, who was sentenced in absentia to life in prison. Under Italian law, crime victims may seek civil damages as part of a criminal proceeding. Germany had argued that the 1961 Bonn Treaty, where Germany agreed to pay 40 million marks to Italy for war crimes committed, closed all further financial compensation claims [JURIST report], but the Italian court held the treaty only applied to treatment of the Jews. International agreements that govern situations in which a nation may claim immunity include the European Convention on State Immunity [text], ratified by members of the Council of Europe in 1972, and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property [text, PDF], adopted in 2004. JURIST Guest Columnist Laurie Blank [academic profile] discusses the implications of sovereign immunity [JURIST op-ed] in cases like Germany v. Italy that involve war crimes and other atrocities

[JURIST] The Supreme Court Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] on Friday sentenced Kaing Guek Eav [Hague Justice profile; ECCC materials], also known as "Duch," to life imprisonment [press release] for crimes against humanity and violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions [materials]. In a supermajority decision [summary, PDF], the Supreme Court Chamber overturned two decisions of the Trial Chamber. According to the Supreme Court Chamber, the July 2010 decision [JURIST report] imposing 35 years of imprisonment was made in error because it focused on the mitigating factors such as cooperation, regret and apology [JURIST report] rather than the seriousness of the crimes. The court emphasized that Kaing's role as head of Security Center S-21 [Fathom backgrounder] and his crimes during his office. In addition, the Supreme Court Chamber found that remedies granted to Kaing for the illegal detention by Cambodian Military Court were wrong because the Trial Chamber considered only specific crimes against humanity, the Supreme Court entered additional convictions for crimes against humanity including extermination, enslavement and torture.

Kaing is the only former Khmer Rouge leader to have been convicted by the ECCC. Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith, Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea were indicted [JURIST report] in September 2010. The ECCC ruled that Ieng Thirith was unfit to stand trial, but the Supreme Court Chamber in December ordered that she remain in detention [JURIST reports] and that the Trial Chamber exhaust all measures so that she can stand trial. The other three went on trial [JURIST report] in November. In October 2010, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile] informed the UN that Cambodia will not allow further prosecutions of low-ranking Khmer Rouge officers [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said Friday that Syrian army and security officers have been engaged in the torture of children [press release]. The allegations stem from HRW's documentation of cases in which children were reportedly detained, tortured and shot in their homes. There are prior findings that the Syrian government has been involved in torturing and killing civilian protesters. HRW discovered that among those tortured protesters were children as young as 13. Interviews with juvenile victims and adult protesters who saw those children in detention centers confirmed HRW's findings. Children were reportedly arrested in schools, beaten and confined in solitary cells for several weeks without adequate food supply and medical attention:

Children have not been spared the horror of Syria's crackdown. Syrian security forces have killed, arrested, and tortured children in their homes, their schools, or on the streets. In many cases, security forces have targeted children just as they have targeted adults.

In addition to the violence against children, the Syrian government has confiscated schools and hospitals for the use of military purposes such as detention centers or sniper posts. HRW urged the UN Security Council [official website] to take action and to press the Syrian government to end the inhumane violence against children.

The Syrian government has been under severe criticism for its continued violence and its failure to stop it. Last month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] demanded [JURIST report] Syria's president Bashar al-Assad [BBC backgrounder] end the violence against its own people and strive for establishing democracy. In the same month, Syria released [JURIST report] more than 500 prisoners who were accused of having participated in terrorist activities, according to its agreement with the Arab League [official website, in Arabic]. However, such release was only of the small responsibilities that Syria had to comply with and HRW criticized Syria for failure to meet the majority of these obligations. HRW and the UN High Commissioner for Human RIghts Navi Pillar also called for an ICC investigation [JURIST report] concerning shootings of unarmed protesters by military officials and other crimes against humanity [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The Virginia Senate [official website] approve a bill [text] on Wednesday that would require a woman seeking an abortion [JURIST news archive] to have an ultrasound before the procedure. The new requirements include the audio provision of fetal heartbeat and a determination of the gestational age of the fetus. Additionally, a written record must be created to indicate that the woman was offered the ultrasound and whether she choose to view it. That record, along with a copy of the ultrasound picture will be included in the woman's medical file. Some commentators have recently noted [JURIST op-ed] that similar legislation, and court opinions supporting those laws, have signaled a shift in the abortion debate from a "right to life" to a "right to know" doctrine.

Virignia is not the first state to pass such legislation, and similar rules have drawn various results when challenged in the court system. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] lifted an injunction [JURIST report] on a Texas law [JURIST report] that requires women to have a sonogram before undergoing an abortion, allowing the law to be enforced. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March of 2010, The Supreme Court of Oklahoma [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] that it will not release video recordings from Perry v. Schwarzenegger [opinion], California's 2010 trial which declared Proposition 8 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], the state's same-sex marriage ban, to be unconstitutional. In reversing the opinion of the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], the circuit court concluded that recordings from the landmark case could not be released [AP report] without undermining the integrity of the judicial system. It found that Chief Judge Walker, the district judge at trial, "made no commitment to the parties to limit the use of the recording to helping him with his own deliberations, and, more important, not to allow the recording to be used for 'public broadcasting or televising.'" As such, held the Ninth Circuit, the district court abused its discretion in unsealing the videos because it lacked support in inferences that could be drawn from the record. Said the court:

The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge's word. The record compels the finding that the trial judge's representations to the parties were solemn commitments. ... We conclude ... that the integrity of the judicial process is a compelling interest that in these circumstances would be harmed by the nullification of the trial judge's express assurances, and that there are no alternatives to maintaining the recording under seal that would protect the compelling interest at issue.

Walker, who has since retired and revealed his relationship with another man, originally wanted the trial broadcasted. He was subsequently blocked [JURIST report] from doing so by the US Supreme Court [official website], which cited that witnesses sponsoring the ban could be subject to harassment if the trial footage became viral. The Ninth Circuit made clear that it would not yet decide the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The Ninth Circuit heard arguments [JURIST report] in December on whether the video recordings should be released to the public. There, Proposition 8 supporters, much like their original argument against broadcasting the trial, argued [text, PDF] against the release because it could lead to harassment of their witnesses. The supporters also claimed that the First Amendment right of access has no application in this instance. Proposition 8 opponents argued [text, PDF] that there is no reason not to make the recordings public, and that there is a public interest to do so. Proposition 8 was approved [JURIST report] by California voters in November 2008 and remains legally controversial.

Four accused assassins of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri will be tried in absentia, a UN tribunal said Wednesday. The UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) said Wednesday that after considering the efforts taken by the prosecution and the authorities to apprehend the suspects, they would move forward with the trial. The four alleged Hezbollah members are accused of involvement in a February 2005 truck bomb that killed Hariri and 22 other people. The STL determined that the prosecution took "all reasonable steps" to apprehend and inform the accused, and that the proceedings were a "last resort":

The Trial Chamber examined ... the steps taken by the Lebanese authorities to apprehend the accused and inform them about the proceedings. These efforts included multiple attempts by the Lebanese authorities to find the accused at their last known residences, places of employment, family homes and other locations. The Trial Chamber also took into consideration the fact that the indictment and the identities of the accused received massive publicity in Lebanon...While the STL is the only international Tribunal that can prosecute accused in their absence, it is a measure of last resort to ensure that the pursuit of justice is not paralysed by those who choose to abscond.

No date has been set for the trial, which will not begin for at least 4 months. STL Head of Defence Francois Roux will be assigned to appoint counsel to the accused. If the accused choose to appear or are apprehended at anytime during the trial, they have a right to appoint their own counsel and be retried. If the accused appear after a verdict and sentence have been delivered, they may accept both, request a new sentence, or request a new trial.

Last August the STL announced that it would investigate three additional bomb attacks that may be connected to the February 2005 attack that killed Hariri. Earlier that month, the STL unsealed the indictment against the four individuals accused of the assassination. Also in August the STL president made a public plea for the men to turn themselves in. Judge Antonio Cassese guaranteed a fair trial and adequate representation and pressed Lebanese citizens to allow the STL to hold the assassins accountable. In February 2011 the appeals chamber of the STL issued a unanimous ruling on several procedural issues, including the definition of terrorism, in judicial proceedings. The STL began debate on the issue to determine which laws to apply in the case against the alleged Hariri assasins. Using the Article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code, the court held that a conviction on the charge of terrorism requires proof of an act intended to spread terror and use of a means "liable to create a public danger," that the only requirement is that "the means used to carry out the terrorist attack be liable to create a common danger" and that the trial judges should be given latitude in determining whether the requirement was met after having considered the facts presented in the case. The STL was established in 2005 at the request of the Lebanese government to try those alleged to be connected to the bombing in which Hariri was killed by explosions detonated near his motorcade in Beirut.

Lawyers for a suspect in the USS Cole bombing being held at Guantanamo Bay filed a motion Tuesday with the military commission overseeing detainee cases seeking to subpoena the president of Yemen for questioning. Lawyers for alleged al Qaeda senior leader Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri filed the motions seeking to question Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh while he is in the US receiving medical treatment. They argue that because Saleh will be in the jurisdiction of the US he can lawfully be subpoenaed. Nashiri's lawyers argue that Saleh, who was president of Yemen when the USS Cole attack occurred, may have information pertinent to their case. They also filed a motion for expedited ruling on the issue so the court should announce a decision on the motion soon.

In November Nashiri made his first court appearance, his first public appearance since he was captured in Dubai in 2002. Nashiri is charged with war crimes under the Military Commission Act of 2009 relating to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 which killed 17 men, the bombing of the MV Limburg in 2002 and a failed plot to attack an American warship, The Sullivans, in 2000. In May of last year, lawyers for Nashiri filed suit against Poland over his supposed torture in a secret CIA prison in the country. In 2007, Nashiri declared that his confession to orchestrating the USS Cole bombing was elicited under torture. Nashiri, along with fellow militant Jamal al-Badawi, was sentenced to death by a Yemeni court in 2004 for his role in the attack on the Cole.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed concern [press release] Thursday about excessive force used by Senegalese authorities in response to protests that ensued after the announcement of presidential candidates. Reports of shooting at protestors have caused the death of at least one police officer and four other people this week. The reports were "disturbing" to Pillay given Senegal's tradition of respect for freedom of association, assembly and expression. She said, "[w]ith the presidential campaign beginning this weekend, I cannot stress enough the importance of full respect for the fundamental human rights. These rights are particularly crucial during an election period." Pillay stressed following standards of maintaining public order laid out in international law. She called for an investigation into the killings and the alleged use of disproportionate force by both police officers and protestors. Pillay also called on the presidential candidates to discourage the violence.

Senegal's highest court ruled [JURIST report] Monday that President Abdoulaye Wade [official profile, in French] can run for a third term, rejecting an appeal by the opposition. The Senegalese Constitution [text, in French] had no term limits when Wade initially took office in 2000, but it was amended in 2001 to impose a two-term limit. After the court's preliminary ruling on Friday, a group of youth protesters were confronted by the police. With legal means of stopping Wade's candidacy now exhausted the country may face instability in the coming weeks. The governments of the US and France have both warned of instability that could result from election-related violence.

[JURIST] An Iraq war veteran filed suit [complaint, PDF] Wednesday in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [official website] after it refused to pay her full disability benefits because she is in a same-sex marriage. Tracy Cooper-Harris, who served in the US Army [official website] for over a decade, argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text] is unconstitutional because it discriminates against legally married individuals. Cooper-Harris and her wife were legally married in California in 2008. Cooper-Harris has been receiving benefits from the VA since she was honorably discharged in 2003. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and post traumatic stress related to her time in service. The VA denied the veteran the level of benefits received by married persons under DOMA, and instead pay her benefits at the lesser single person rate. Additionally, Cooper-Harris' spouse will not be entitled to receive compensation in the event of Cooper-Harris' death as she would have been entitled to if their marriage was recognized under the federal law.

A similar suit was filed [JURIST report] in Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [official website] in October of last year by a disabled Navy veteran contesting the VA's refusal to allow her same-sex partner to collect a portion of her disability benefits. The veteran, Carmen Cardona, filed the suit after her claim for veterans' spousal benefits was denied under DOMA on the basis that she was in a same-sex marriage. The outcome of these cases is uncertain after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced in February of last year that it would no longer defend the constitutionality [JURIST report] of DOMA in court cases challenging the provision, there is no obligation on federal agencies not to enforce the law. US President Barack Obama [official website] told gay rights activists in October of last year that he would continue to fight for the repeal [JURIST report] of DOMA, reinforcing that the DOJ is not defending its constitutionality.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] on Thursday ordered Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] to appear in court on February 13 for a formal indictment on contempt charges. Gilani has failed to comply with the court's order to reopen a corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari [official website], but Gilani maintains he did not comply with the court's order because Zardari is immune from prosecution [Al Jazeera report]. The conflict between the prime minister and the court stems from an order which struck down [JURIST report] the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) [text] in 2009, which granted immunity to Zardari and 8,000 other government officials from charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder and terrorism between January 1986 and October 1999. Gilani and his lawyers are considering appealing the indictment, which is permitted in Pakistan even before a conviction has been handed down. If convicted, Gilani could face six months in prison and removal from public office.

These proceedings reflect an ongoing struggle between the government and the courts in Pakistan. In December, the Supreme Court formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo [JURIST report] sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Zardari and former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. In October 2011, the Supreme Court issued a judgment urging political parties to stop financing criminal groups [JURIST report] responsible for increased violence in the city of Karachi. The decision stated that militant groups have gained strength because of support from local political groups and order the Pakistani government to help address the corruption. The court struck down the NRO in 2009, which was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in 2007.

[JURIST] The Washington state Senate [official website] approved Senate Bill 6239 [materials] to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] by a vote of 28–21 late Wednesday evening. Washington currently grants expanded domestic partnership rights [JURIST report] rather than full marriage or civil union rights to same-sex couples. Several amendments affording protection of religious objection to same-sex marriage were added to the bill in debate. Others, that would have triggered a referendum on the issue, and would have allowed marriage-related business owners' ability to discriminate against same-sex couples, were rejected.

The House of Representatives [official website] is expected to pass the bill soon. Governor Christine Gregoire [official website], a major supporter of the movement, has sworn to sign the bill [JURIST report] on several occasions, and on Wednesday released a statement [text] commending the Senate.

Washington is poised to become the eighth jurisdiction in the US to legalize same-sex marriage [US map]. In a similar situation, New Jersey is considering legalizing same-sex marriage soon, although it currently has a civil union system in place. In November, a marriage equality lawsuit [JURIST report] was allowed to continue in New Jersey, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the state civil union law as a contravention of both the Fourteenth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] and the New Jersey State Constitution. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports]. The case for same-sex marriage was recently made by JURIST contributor Kimberly Bennett in Judicial Activism and the Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage [JURIST op-ed].

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] on Wednesday under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] demanding the US government release information about their targeted killing program [press release] of US citizens abroad. The lawsuit comes in response to the three American citizens that have been killed by drones in the past four months. In particular, the ACLU seeks specific evidence that provided the basis for the strikes in Yemen during the fall of 2011, which killed three Americans. This lawsuit overlaps and expands on a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by the New York Times (NYT) [media website] requesting the legal memos that provide the basis for the US's targeted killing program. The complaint states:

Although U.S. government officials, including the President and the Secretary of Defense, have made statements on the record confirming the existence of the targeted killing program, the government has not disclosed the process by which it adds names to so-called "killed lists;" the standards under which it determines which Americans may be put to death; or the evidentiary bases on which it concludes that those standards satisfied in any particular case.

The Obama administration maintains that the killing of American terrorism suspects is a state secret.

Targeted killings have been a controversial topic [JURIST comment] during the current war on terror. In December, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] alleging the government violated the FOIA in refusing to release legal memoranda related to targeted killings of terror suspects. The suit relates to the death of the US-born radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] who was killed in a US drone strike [JURIST report] in Yemen in September 2011. An Obama administration legal memorandum [JURIST report] from 2010 found that the killing of US citizen and senior al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] leader al-Awlaqi would only be legal if it were not feasible to take al-Awlaqi alive. The memo followed months of legal debate regarding the decision to kill a US citizen without first having a trial.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] accepted a plea agreement [press release] on Tuesday in which Jelena Rasic, the case manager for Bosnian war criminal Milan Lukic, pleaded guilty [amended indictment, PDF] to five counts of contempt against the tribunal. According to the original indictment [PDF], the prosecutor of the tribunal charged Rasic with contempt for procuring false witness statements from three Bosnian citizens. In exchange for signing the pre-written witness statements, Rasic gave the three citizens money. The prosecutor concluded that by procuring these false witness statements and committing bribery, Rasic "knowingly and willfully interfered with the tribunal's administration of justice." The prosecutor filed the indictment against Rasic in July 2010. In her initial appearance before the tribunal in September 2010, Rasic pleaded not guilty to all five contempt charges. No date has been set for her judgment hearing.

The ICTY has been the subject of copious international attention recently. On Monday, former Serb nationalist politician and war crimes suspect Vojislav Seselj [official website, in Serbian; JURIST news archive] sued the ICTY [JURIST report] for $2.6 million in damages for allegedly unreasonable delays in his trial. In December, the ICTY convicted former Yugoslav intelligence officer Dragomir Pecanac of contempt [JURIST report] for failing to testify before the tribunal. Also in December, former Serbian general and alleged war criminal Ratko Mladic [ICTY backgrounder; JURIST news archive], testifying before the ICTY, pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to murdering over 30 Muslim prisoners. Earlier in December, the ICTY, along with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] reported progress [JURIST report] to the UN Security Council [official website]. During this meeting, the ICTY reported that its last two wanted fugitives had been arrested, meaning none of the 161 persons wanted by the tribunal [materials] remains at large.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Liberian president Charles Taylor [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] requested Tuesday that the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) [official website] reopen Taylor's war crimes case in light of new evidence, including a recent report [text, PDF] by the UN Panel of Experts on Liberia. Taylor's lawyers request this report be admitted as evidence in the case [AP report], claiming that the report may show that Taylor was not instrumental in directing mercenaries who committed war crimes in Sierra Leone. The report dedicates about 20 pages to Liberian mercenaries, and Taylor's lawyers contend that the panel's research demonstrates that the mercenaries were acting of their own accord. Taylor's charges [indictment, PDF] include 11 counts of crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law. His trial officially concluded [JURIST report] in March 2011, but no verdict has been returned. The court did not immediately respond to his lawyers' request.

The SCSL heard closing arguments in March 2011. Closing arguments were originally set to begin a month earlier, but were postponed pending an appeals chamber decision to accept the defense's final written brief [JURIST reports]. The trial chamber originally disregarded the brief because it was 20 days late. Taylor has denied the charges [JURIST report] against him, which include murder, rape, sexual slavery and acts of terrorism stemming from from a "campaign to terrorize the civilian population" of Sierra Leone [JURIST news archive]. Taylor's defense lawyers opened their case [JURIST report] in July 2009 and have claimed that he could not have commanded rebel forces in Sierra Leone while acting as the president of Liberia. His trial continued after the court denied his motion for acquittal [JURIST report] in May 2009.

[JURIST] The Swedish Supreme Court [official website, in Swedish] announced Wednesday that it will not hear an appeal of the copyright convictions of Fredrik Neji, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundstroem for their involvement in running The Pirate Bay [website], a file-sharing website. After reviewing the case, the court found there were no special circumstances warranting review. The court could also have decided to hear the case if it determined a review by Sweden's highest court would be important for the country's law enforcement, but it declined to hear the appeal on those ground as well. The court's decision not to hear the appeal immediately prompted response from critics. The founder of the Pirate Party [party website in Swedish], a political party in Sweden, expressed concern [press release in Swedish] over the court's decision not to hear the case calling it a "fundamentally important" case that, if decided by the high court, would help to sort out future cases. The Pirate Bay also issued a defiant response on its website [press release] stating that "what enrages us to our inner core is that the system, the empire, the governments, are still allowed to try to boss you and us around with one law crazier than the other." It is unclear what will happen to the website in light of this decision.

In November of last year the Swedish Svea Appeals Court [materials] upheld [JURIST report] the convictions of the Pirate Bay founders. In April 2009 the website operators were sentenced to one year in prison for abetting copyright infringement [judgment, PDF, in Swedish; JURIST report]. In June 2009 several Hollywood production companies filed suit [JURIST report] in Sweden against the operators of The Pirate Bay, seeking an injunction. The US companies, including Disney, Universal and Columbia Pictures, filed a writ to sue in the Stockholm District Court, requesting that the court order the owners to cease and desist operations.

[JURIST] Four British men pleaded guilty Wednesday to plotting an al Qaeda inspired attack against the London Stock Exchange (LSE) [official website]. In December 2010, nine men who met through radical Islamist groups were charged and taken into custody [JURIST report] in the UK for conspiring to bomb the US Embassy [official website] and the LSE. When the plot was uncovered, all nine men were picked up in raids. They denied all charges originally, but four of the men pleaded guilty [AP report] on the eve of their trials. Mohammed Chowdhury, Shah Rahman, Gurukanth Desai and Abdul Miah admitted that they planned to place an improvised explosive device in the LSE toilets. The other five men pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The prosecutor admitted that the men did not plan to kill anyone, but intended to spread mass terror and economic harm. However, he did contend that their actions created risks to the lives of many. The men were not members of al Qaeda, but were inspired by the organization and the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaqi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], the US born cleric who was killed last year [JURIST report]. The men talked and planned openly, not knowing that they were under surveillance. Sentencing will take place next week, but the judge has already informed Chowdhury and Rahman that they will receive sentences of 18 1/2 and 17 years in prison respectively.

Great Britain has been the target of terror plots in the years since the 2005 London transit bombings [JURIST report; JURIST news archive], but has been proactive about prompt apprehension of terror suspects. The 2005 attacks killed 52 people and injured 700 others. In October 2010, a UK court began inquests into the bombings [JURIST report] to determine whether more lives could have been saved with a quicker response. In July 2010, the UK Woolwich Crown Court sentenced three British Muslims to a minimum of 20 years in prison after being convicted [JURIST reports] and sentenced to life in prison under the Terrorism Act of 2006 for involvement with a 2006 plot to blow up numerous transatlantic flights.

[JURIST] Google issued a letter [text; press release] Tuesday in response to concerns raised by members of Congress regarding consumer privacy rights as impacted by the search giant's new privacy policy [corporate website; press release]. In its response Google replied to 11 specific questions posed in a letter sent last week [JURIST report] to CEO Larry Page [NYT backgrounder] by US Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) [official website] and seven other lawmakers. Google's response included a confirmation that no new types of data are going to be collected with the advent of the new privacy policy, a list of those services that can be used without signing into a Google Account, the reasons for data sharing between Google products, and a description of the process for data deletion when a user closes an account, along with background information on the motivation for the policy changes. Google maintains its primary reasons for the new privacy policy are to simplify the policy to make it more understandable for consumers, and to improve the user experience across all Google products. In its letter Google described its consolidation of approximately 70 different privacy policies from its various products into a single policy, noting, "Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler privacy policies." Furthermore the company stated that it will continue to comply with the obligations set out in its settlement with the FTC [JURIST report], including the submission of regular independent reviews of its privacy policies, and did not anticipate violating any terms of the settlement. The new privacy policy is set to go into effect March 1.

Google has had several legal battles in the last year, with consumer privacy rights often at issue. In August the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced that the agency had reached a $500 million settlement [JURIST report] with Google for permitting Canadian pharmaceutical companies to advertise to and target US consumers. In July a federal judge extended settlement negotiations [JURIST report] over a 2005 copyright suit filed against Google over its Google Books [corporate website] book scanning project. Also in July another federal judge ruled that Google could appeal a decision permitting a wiretapping lawsuit [JURIST report] over Google's Street View [corporate website] service to proceed. Google was accused of violating user privacy by using WiFi networks to collect data for the service, a charge that came as a result of a multistate investigation that began in June of 2010. There have been international rulings on the Street View service as well. A Swiss court ruled the service constituted a violation of privacy, while a German court ruled it did not [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] on Monday urged [press release] the Indian government to prosecute Border Security Force (BSF) [official website] soldiers that it has long implicated in torture and extrajudicial killings near the Bangladesh border. HRW's plea comes in response to the release of a YouTube video [warning: graphic content] capturing BSF soldiers stripping, tying up and beating a Bangladeshi national caught smuggling cattle from Bangladesh into India. Although Indian law requires the BSF to hand over such lawbreakers to the police, HRW contends that the soldiers "illegally detained and tortured" the man, then left him to return to Bangladesh. Said Meenakshi Ganguly [HRW profile], South Asian director at HRW:

These horrific images of torture on video show what rights groups have long documented: that India's Border Security Force is out of control. The Indian government is well aware of killings and torture at the border, but has never prosecuted the troops responsible. This video provides a clear test case of whether the security forces are above the law in India.

The BSF has so far suspended eight soldiers and ordered an inquiry into the situation. However, despite the video evidence, the Indian government has yet to file criminal charges against any of the soldiers.

In December 2010, HRW and the Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) [advocacy website], a Kolkatta-based NGO that posted the video, and Odhikar [advocacy website], an NGO based in Dhaka, published Trigger Happy: Excessive Use of Force by Indian Troops at the Bangladesh Border [text, PDF], a report accusing BSF soldiers of torturing both Indians and Bangladeshis. Although the Indian government soon thereafter ordered an end to the use of lethal force by BSF soldiers except in self-defense, allegations of killings and torture have continued. In April 2010, the Cabinet of India approved [JURIST report] the Prevention of Torture Bill [text, PDF] after lengthy legislative delays in an effort to move the country closer to international human rights standards.

[JURIST] A French genocide denial ban [materials, in French] passed last week [JURIST report] stalled on Tuesday after two groups of French politicians challenged the law's constitutionality. The opposition groups, which include members in both the Senate and the National Assembly, gathered the necessary signatures to require the Constitutional council of the French Republic [official websites, in French] to determine if the law is constitutional. While France has already recognized the 1915 killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide, the new law would punish anyone who denies that the killings constituted a genocide with up to a year in jail and a USD $59,000 fine [AFP report]. While French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] has insisted that the law did not specifically target Turkey, Turkish officials were furious, warning that if the law takes effect, Turkey will impose unspecified sanctions on France [AP report]. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan [BBC profile] remained hopeful, however, that the constitutional council would strike down the genocide denial law [Al Jazeera report].

The Armenian genocide is also a contentious issue in US law and politics. In November the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] decided to revisit a case [JURIST report] to determine whether a California law declaring Armenian genocide in Turkey conflicts with US foreign policy. In August 2010 a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] unanimously dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the exclusion of materials questioning the Armenian genocide from a school curriculum. In March 2010 the Obama administration announced its opposition to a resolution [JURIST report] labeling the World War I-era killings as genocide. The announcement came after the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the resolution [JURIST report] by a vote of 23-22. Erdogan condemned the resolution, and the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to the US.

[JURIST] Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] took the stand in his second trial [JURIST report] before the Spanish Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] on Tuesday and defended his investigation into war crimes allegedly committed under Francisco Franco [BBC backgrounder] during the Spanish Civil War. Garzon has been charged with abusing power by ordering the exhumation [JURIST reports] of 19 mass graves in Spain in order to assemble a definitive national registry of Civil War victims, despite a 1977 law that provides amnesty for Franco-era crimes. While on the stand, Garzon refused to answer questions [CNN report] posed to him by the prosecution but did answer questions from his defense lawyer. Garzon denied that his investigation was politically motivated, stating that he was seeking justice for the victims of the alleged crimes. Garzon also rejected the idea that the 1977 amnesty law covers widespread human rights abuses. He indicated that the 1977 law was only meant to cover crimes of a political nature [Telegraph report], not crimes against humanity. Garzon's testimony was consistent with his previous statements defending [JURIST report] the validity of the investigation by insisting that he acted within the bounds of the law and appropriately applied the law at all times. If he is convicted, Garzon could face a suspension of up to 20 years.

Last March, Garzon filed a petition [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging the 2010 abuse of power charges, for which he was suspended [JURIST report]. His petition follows the September 2010 decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court, which unanimously confirmed [JURIST report] a lower court order that Garzon abused his power and must face trial. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. He is also facing two other trials, including one trial that began earlier in January involving charges that he ordered the placement of wiretaps in jailhouses [JURIST report] to record conversations between inmates and their lawyers. The third trial, which has not started, involves bribery charges over money Garzon received for seminars conducted in the US.