[JURIST] A same-sex couple argued in court in Boston Monday that a 1913 Massachusetts law [text] should not prevent them from marrying in the state because statutes in their home state of Rhode Island do not explicitly ban gay marriage. Mary Norton and Mary Becker [GLAD profiles], represented by an attorney with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website], said the law prohibiting same-sex couples from pursuing a marriage in Massachusetts does not apply to Rhode Island residents [GLAD legal brief, PDF] because there is no "express pronouncement" against gay marriage in their home state's laws. The couple filed an "intention to marry" notice in Massachusetts shortly after the state started performing same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive] in 2004, but the 1913 law ostensibly prevented them from obtaining a license.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in March that gay couples from New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut could not marry in Massachusetts according to the law, but remanded part of the case to the Massachusetts Superior Court [official website] to decide whether the same prohibition applied to couples from Rhode Island and New York. The Massachusetts Attorney General [official website] is arguing against the couple and state lawyers said Monday that the Rhode Island laws make references to bride and groom [Attorney General legal brief, PDF], therefore indicating that marriage is only lawful between a woman and man. The superior court judge is expected to make his ruling in the case within the next six weeks. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] issued 50% fewer warning letters [press release] to companies violating federal drug and safety regulations in the past five years under the Bush administration, according to a report [PDF text] released Monday by US Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) [official website]. In 2000, the FDA issued 1,154 warning letters [yearly archives], while in 2005, only 535 letters went out, and Waxman said the numbers dropped despite a constant level of violations. David Elder, the director of the FDA Office of Enforcement, responded by saying the number of letters sent does not accurately reflect the agency's activities, noting that the department has instead focused its efforts on blocking major health risks to the public resulting in $2.5 billion in fines and restitutions since 2000.

Waxman's investigative report also cites recommendations by FDA field monitors during site inspections that were rejected by departmental officials. One incident involved the lack of a warning to a company that marketed a drug to remedy hangovers which contained toxic caffeine amounts. Waxman said the FDA's response that it does not keep a record of violation recommendations is a breach of federal documentation tracking laws. AP has more.

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June. From Australia, ABC News has local coverage.

[JURIST] Civil rights groups called Monday for the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) [text; DOJ backgrounder] before Congress takes its Fourth of July recess. At a news conference in Atlanta, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) [advocacy website] and the Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta singled out two Republican lawmakers [ACLU press release], accusing them of holding up the legislation that would renew the VRA's provisions [HR 9 summary; PDF text]. The bill, known as the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, was scheduled for a vote in the House on June 20 but was held up [JURIST report].

The two lawmakers, Reps. Lynn Westmoreland and Charlie Norwood [official websites] object to provisions in Section 5 of the VRA that require federal oversight for nine Southern states, and they propose amendments they say modernize the bill [Norwood press release]. The ACLU, however, describes the proposed changes as a "poison pill" [ACLU letter]. AP has more.

[JURIST] A federal judge on Monday issued a temporary restraining order [brief in support, PDF] that prevents the state of Georgia [JURIST news archive] from fully enforcing a law that restricts where convicted sex offenders can live and work. The order, issued by US District Judge Clarence Cooper [official profile] in the Northern District of Georgia [official website], applies only to the eight plaintiffs in the case. The law [legislative materials], which takes effect on July 1, forbids people convicted of certain sex-related crimes from living or working within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate," including school bus stops. A violation is a felony punishable by 10 to 30 years in prison.

The Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) [advocacy website], which is representing the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit [complaint, PDF; SCHR materials], says that the law violates several constitutional provisions and at least one federal statute, and that it would require all but a few of the state's offenders to move. Cooper has scheduled a hearing in the case for July 11. AP has more. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has local coverage [registration required].

[JURIST] Voters in Italy [JURIST news archive] have decisively rejected amendments to the Italian Constitution [text] that would have given more power to the prime minister and decreased the size of Parliament [JURIST report]. The daily La Repubblica in Rome is reporting that 61.4 percent of voters opposed the amendments in the two-day referendum that ended Monday, while 38.6 percent supported them. The result is an additional defeat for former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], whose government introduced the proposals but was voted out of power [JURIST report] in April, and a victory for Berlusconi's successor, Romano Prodi [official website, in Italian], who campaigned against them.

The amendment package would have changed 50 of the constitution's 139 articles. Provisions would have allowed the prime minister to appoint and fire Cabinet members without presidential approval, give him the power to dissolve parliament, and give Italy's 20 regions the authority to govern health, security and education issues locally. In a statement [text, in Italian] issued on Monday, Prodi pledged to "set up a dialogue" with Parliament on "the reform of the constitution and the electoral law." Reuters has more. La Repubblica has local coverage, in Italian.

[JURIST] A committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) [official website; government backgrounder], the legislature of China [JURIST news archive], has decided not to criminalize sex-selective abortions [Wikipedia backgrounder], the state-run China Daily reported Monday. A proposed amendment to the criminal law would have punished anyone convicted of involvement in sex-selective abortions with a three-year prison sentence. Zhou Kunren, vice-chairman of the law subcommittee of the NPC's Standing Committee, told the newspaper that lawmakers could not agree on the amendment. Supporters of the measure are concerned about the disproportionate number of baby boys born in China – 119 per 100 girls – while opponents argue that women have a right to know the sex of a fetus. Earlier this month, the province of Hebei closed more than 200 clinics [Xinhua report] that officials said identified and aborted female fetuses.

The Standing Committee [official backgrounder], which meets between the NPC's plenary sessions, began a six-day session on Saturday. China Daily has more. The Financial Times has additional coverage from Beijing.

[JURIST] UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron [party profile] said Monday that he would appoint a panel of legal experts to examine whether the increasingly-controversial Human Rights Act of 1998 [text; JURIST news archive] should be replaced with an American-style Bill of Rights. Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies [think tank website] in London, Cameron asserted that the act doesn't adequately protect rights even as it makes fighting crime and terrorism more difficult. Cameron said [text, PDF]:

So I believe that the time has now come for a new solution that protects liberties in this country that is home-grown and sensitive to Britain's legal inheritance that enables people to feel they have ownership of their rights and one which at the same time enables a British Home Secretary to strike a common-sense balance between civil liberties and the protection of public security. The Conservative Party, under my leadership, is determined to provide a hard-nosed defence of security and freedom. And I believe that the right way to do that is through a modern British Bill of Rights that also balances rights with responsibilities. This would clearly set out people's rights, would enable those rights to be protected in British courts, and would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and terrorism.

[JURIST] Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys [Reuters profile], the new supreme leader of Somalia's Islamic Courts Party whose militia took control of the capital of Mogadishu [JURIST report] from US-backed warlords earlier this month, vowed Monday to impose Islamic law - Sharia [Wikipedia backgrounder] - on the country and denied US allegations that he is a terrorist as a former leader of the al-Itihaad al-Islamiya militant group [Wikipedia backgrounder]. Aweys was elected [IRIN report] as head of the parliamentary Council of Islamic Courts (CIC) last weekend, and said the Council would work with other countries that respect it. Interim Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed [BBC profile] strongly opposes the imposition of Islamic law. The weak interim government [JURIST report] and the CIC agreed last weekend to stop fighting.

Somalia has suffered through an internal civil war and several failed peace talks [timeline] since the collapse of civilian government in 1991. The Islamic Courts [BBC profile], reportedly the most popular political party in the country, are seeking to promote Islamic law rather than clan allegiance, even though all but one of the 11 courts come from the same clan. AFP has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The European Union [official website] on Monday condemned all instances of torture, even "on grounds of national security," and called on all countries to sign and follow the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) [text], marking the United Nations' ninth annual International Day in Support of Victims of Torture [UN factsheet; UN News report]. In a statement [text], the Austrian presidency of the EU said:

The EU firmly recalls that there is an absolute prohibition placed on the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that all States must ensure that they do not resort to these barbaric practices. Recalling the Resolution 60/148 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 2005, the EU reiterates its principled condemnation of any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalise, authorise or acquiesce in torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under any circumstances, including on grounds of national security.

The EU urges all States, which have not yet done so, to become parties to the International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as a matter of priority and to co-operate with the relevant international mechanisms...

The EU attaches immense importance to the UN's role in fighting torture and supporting victims and underlines its support for the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the UN Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, the OHCHR, UNCAT, CPT and other mechanisms making valuable contributions in this field. The EU is continuing to undertake political, diplomatic and financial initiatives to combat torture within the framework of the EU Guidelines against Torture which were adopted by the Council in 2001. All EU Member States co-sponsored and actively supported the drafting and adoption of a resolution against torture at the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the EU adopted on the 27 June 2005 a Regulation which prohibits the export and import of goods whose only practical use is to carry out capital punishment or to inflict torture. The export of goods which could be used for such purposes is also subjected to authorisation by EU Member State authorities. This welcome step will serve to further reinforce the global fight against torture. The EU hopes that other States will introduce similar legislation.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] said Monday that it would consider whether the Clean Air Act [text] requires the US Environmental Protection Agency [official website] to regulate "greenhouse gas" emissions from automobiles. The court granted certiorari in Massachusetts v. EPA [docket], an appeal [JURIST report; NET press release] by 12 states, three cities and several environmental groups, arguing that the EPA erred in concluding that Congress did not give the agency the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] denied a request to review the case in August, in a 4-3 decision, and earlier it ruled [opinion, PDF] 2-1 that the US government does not have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks. Reuters has more.

The court also granted certiorari in these cases:

• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly [docket], in which the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] held [opinion, PDF; Tech Law Journal report] that a heightened pleading requirement does not apply to a class-action antitrust lawsuit against major telephone companies, making it easier for such claims to proceed. Reuters has more.
  
  
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. [docket], in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; NAPP backgrounder] that a lower court had applied an inappropriate standard for obviousness to a patent-infringement claim. The Supreme Court could use the case to clarify the "non-obvious" requirement for patents. Reuters has more.
  
  
• Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. [docket], where the Court will consider an appeal of a decision [PDF text] from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning the applicability of Section 2 [text] of the Sherman Act to the practice of buying goods at higher prices to put them out of a competitors' reach, also known as "predatory buying."
  
  
• Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. [docket], where the Court will consider an appeal of a decision [PDF text] of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concerning the calculation of unequal pay decisions by employers in connection to lawsuits brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [text; EEOC backgrounder].

[JURIST] US Rep. Peter King (R-NY) [official website], chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee [official website], encouraged the Bush administration in a FOX News interview [recorded video] on Sunday to press criminal charges against the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal for disclosing a secret CIA financial-monitoring program [JURIST report] supervised by the US Treasury Department [official website]. Under the program, which began shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks [JURIST news archive] to investigate terror suspects, the CIA reviews financial records in an international database owned by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) [corporate website; Wikipedia backgrounder], the financial messaging service that serves as the backbone of the global banking industry. King suggested Sunday that the Bush administration particularly pursue criminal charges against the New York Times because the newspaper published the story against arguments by the Bush administration that publication would jeopardize terror investigations, and also because the New York Times first disclosed the NSA domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive] last December. King said he will write to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to request an investigation and charges. AP has more.

In a related development, President Bush on Monday denounced the publication of the SWIFT program, calling it "disgraceful" and saying the leak "does great harm to the United States of America." New York Times executive editor Bill Keller defended his decision [NYT report] to disclose the SWIFT program as well as the NSA program, saying the paper "served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them." AP has more.

4:06 PM ET - Belgian officials said Monday that they have begun their own investigation into the legality of US searches of records held by SWIFT, which is based in Brussels. A spokesperson for the Belgian Justice Ministry [official website] said that the Justice Minister will be given reports from the country's national security services and counter-fraud office by the end of the week. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Leandro Despouy has called for the Iraqi government to begin an independent investigation [press release] into the murder of Khamis al-Obeidi [JURIST report], a lawyer representing Saddam Hussein in his crimes against humanity trial [JURIST news archive]. Condemning the killing of al-Obeidi, the third defense lawyer assassinated since the trial began last year, Despouy expressed particular concern that Iraqi police forces were involved in the murder.

In a statement Despouy again denounced [JURIST report] the Iraqi High Tribunal trying the case and called for the establishment of an international tribunal:

The Special Rapporteur wishes to recall that the Iraqi High Tribunal has certain deficiencies and that its legitimacy has been rightfully criticized. He is concerned by the fact that its jurisdiction is limited since it cannot judge those responsible for war crimes committed by foreign armed forces neither during the first Gulf war (1990) not after 1 May 2003. Also, the Tribunal was set up in the context of an armed occupation which is mainly considered to be illegal. Moreover, it should be noted that the Tribunal violates a number of international human rights standards on the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and on the right to defense. In this regard, there have been numerous reports of external pressures on the judges of the Iraqi High Tribunal, which may have contributed to the removal and resignation of some of them. Also, the right to an appropriate and independent defense is undermined in particular by the extremely serious attacks against defense lawyers. Finally, he is concerned that the Tribunal is empowered to impose the death penalty and that the prosecution called for the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former senior regime member Taha Yassin Ramadan, in the context of proceedings where fair trial standards are not guaranteed.

The Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate his support for the establishment of an international tribunal to ensure that the entire spectrum of barbaric crimes committed in Iraq are prosecuted in a comprehensive, independent and impartial manner, in full respect of the right to truth of all victims and of the international community at large. In this context, the prompt execution of Saddam Hussein would entail a loss of precious evidence. Both for Iraq and internationally, a sentence for Saddam Hussein reached at the end of proceedings that meet international human rights standards would have tremendous symbolic impact in the context of the fight against impunity and would exemplify that it is possible to impart justice which is not the verdict of the winners against the loosers. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that, in the current circumstances, the Iraqi High Tribunal hardly is in a position to achieve its stated objectives of justice.

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has begun talks with the US on the potential release of eight UK residents detained at the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] into the custody of British authorities. The UK government has successfully negotiated the release of British citizens detained at Guantanamo, but has previously declined to lobby for the release of residents who are not citizens. The UK Foreign Office took over the case [JURIST report] of Australian-born terror suspect David Hicks [JURIST news archive] in mid-June, after British courts ordered the UK to grant Hicks citizenship [JURIST report] because Hicks' mother is a UK citizen. Though the UK has not yet granted him citizenship, Hicks has expressed hope that the UK Foreign Office will negotiate his release from Guantanamo Bay, as it has successfully done in the past with other British detainees.

Talks between the UK and US began days after UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak [official website] suggested that European countries accept detainees [JURIST report] into their own judicial and penitentiary systems to help facilitate the closure of Guantanamo Bay. During the EU-US Summit in Vienna last week, President Bush suggested that US courts could begin trying Guantanamo Bay detainees [JURIST report] as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the legality of military tribunals for detainees in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Duke case backgrounder; JURIST report]; a decision in the case is expected this week. The Times has more.

[JURIST] Mauritania [government website, in Arabic; CIA backgrounder] citizens have approved changes to the country's constitution in a Sunday referendum [BBC Q/A] by 80 to 90 percent, according to preliminary results announced Monday by the Interior Ministry. The changes are being made to the 1991 constitution [text, in French] after a series of votes indicated citizens wanted a return to democracy, in sharp contrast the government of ousted [JURIST report] autocratic ruler Maaouiya Ould Taya [Wikipedia profile].

If the constitutional referendum passes, the president will be given broad powers, but parliament will also be able to vote no confidence in the government. The vote also marks a rare move by an African nation to impose term limits [JURIST report] on presidents, limiting presidencies to two terms of five years. A presidential election will take place in March. AFP has more. BBC News has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday handed down decisions in five cases, including Randall v. Sorrell [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], consolidated with two other cases, where the Court struck down Vermont's Act 64 campaign law [text], which places strict caps on campaign contributions and spending. Opponents of the campaign financing law argued that the restrictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US constitution and that the low contribution levels - $200 for state House races, $300 for state Senate campaigns, and $400 for statewide offices - fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold. In its appellate ruling [PDF text] in the litigation, the Second Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo [text] as allowing spending limits that are "narrowly tailored to secure clearly identified and appropriately documented compelling governmental interests" and upheld the Vermont law. Read the court's opinion [text] per Justice Breyer, along with a concurrence in part [text] from Justice Alito, a concurrence in the judgment [text] from Justice Kennedy, a second concurrence in the judgment [text] from Justice Thomas, who was joined by Justice Scalia, a dissent [text] from Justice Stevens, and a second dissent [text] from Justice Souter, who was joined by Justice Ginsburg and in part by Justice Stevens. AP has more.

In Kansas v. Marsh [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court upheld Kansas' death penalty statute, which requires the death penalty when jurors find mitigating and aggravating factors to be equal. Marsh was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, but on appeal the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state's death penalty statute unconstitutional [decision text]. The Supreme Court reversed the state court, ruling that the Kansas statute "rationally narrows the class of death-eligible defendants and permits a jury to consider any mitigating evidence relevant to its sentencing determination." The Court first heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in December, but the case was reargued [JURIST report] in April in order to allow Justice Alito to participate in consideration of the case. Read the Court's majority opinion [text] per Justice Thomas, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Scalia, a dissent [text] from Justice Stevens and a second dissent [text] from Justice Souter, who was joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. AP has more.

In Washington v. Recuenco [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that "failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is not 'structural' error" and thus does not require automatic reversal. The Court considered whether error as to the definition of a sentencing enhancement should be subject to a harmless error analysis where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict on the enhancement. Recuenco was convicted of second degree assault and the jury found that he was armed with a deadly weapon - a handgun. At sentencing, however, the judge enhanced Recuenco's sentence because he was armed with a firearm rather than because he was armed with a deadly weapon. The Washington Supreme Court reversed [opinion text] this decision, ruling that Recuenco's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated because there was no finding that he was armed with a firearm, but the Supreme Court reversed the state court's ruling. Read the Court's majority opinion [text] per Justice Thomas, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Kennedy, a dissent [text] from Justice Stevens and a second dissent [text] from Justice Ginsburg, who was joined by Justice Stevens.

In Arlington Central School District v. Murphy [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that the attorneys' fees shifting provision [text] contained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [Dept. of Educ. materials] does not authorize a court to award "expert" fees to the parents of a child with a disability who successfully sued under IDEA. The Murphys successfully sued the school district under IDEA and the district court ordered the school district to pay attorneys' fees and fees for an educational consultant. The school district appealed the order to pay consultant fees and the Second Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's decision, but the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court's ruling. Read the Court's 5-4 majority opinion [text] per Justice Alito, along with a concurrence in part [text] from Justice Ginsburg, a dissent [text] from Justice Souter and a second dissent [text] from Justice Breyer, who was joined by Justices Stevens and Souter.

Finally, in US v. Gonzalez-Lopez [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that a defendant is entitled to a reversal of conviction under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel if a trial court improperly denies a person their choice of counsel. In the case, Gonzalez-Lopez wanted to bring in his own out-of-state attorney to represent him on federal drug trafficking charges, but was denied by the trial court in Missouri. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction [ruling, PDF] and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the district court should have provided a reason for denying the defendant his choice of counsel. Read the Court's majority opinion [text] per Justice Scalia, along with a dissent [text] from Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Thomas. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Opponents of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo [official website; Wikipedia profile] filed a new impeachment complaint against Arroyo on Monday, exactly one year after opponents filed an impeachment complaint on three other charges. The Philippine constitution allows only one impeachment lawsuit against a president per year. The charges on Monday allege corruption and human rights abuses for allegedly condoning political murders and violating the constitution to stifle dissent. Arroyo supporters dismiss the complaint as "futile" and a "political gimmick," and analysts predict that the new impeachment complaint will be dismissed due to insufficient support in the House of Representatives.

Members of the Philippines House of Representatives [official website] dismissed three impeachment charges [JURIST report] against Arroyo last September. She had faced allegations [JURIST report] that she rigged last year's election, condoned human rights violations and was involved in corruption. Government opponents have already warned of a political uprising if the new impeachment charges are dismissed on a technicality as they were last year. AP has more. From the Philippines, the Manila Standard Today has local coverage.

[JURIST] Spanish judge Santiago Pedraz has begun his investigation into atrocities committed during Guatemala's 1978-86 armed conflict that included a 1980 military assault on the Spanish Embassy, killing 37 people. Pedraz traveled to Guatemala Saturday in response to a case filed by Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu [Nobel profile] in 1999 seeking the prosecution of people involved in abuses during the armed conflict. Pedraz plans to question several former military rulers, including former heads of state Efrain Rios Montt and Oscar Humberto Mejia [Wikipedia profiles], for their roles in suspected genocide, torture and illegal detention. Guatemalan officials, however, have indicated they may not allow Pedraz to proceed.

The Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) [official website] took jurisdiction [JURIST report] over the case earlier this year, after Spain's Constitutional Court [official website, in Spanish] ruled [JURIST report] last year that Spanish courts can exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed during Guatemala's civil war [BBC timeline]. The Constitutional Court decided that universal jurisdiction outweighed national interests in cases of genocide. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Li Rongxing, a former oilfield chief, has been sentenced to death in China after being convicted of taking bribes and embezzling over $4.6 million in the people's intermediate court in Tai'an [government website, in Chinese], newspapers in Beijing reported Monday. The former president of Shengli Oilfield Dynamic, a subsidiary of Sinopec [corporate website], was found guilty of stealing the money between 1994 and 2003 through a range of different operations, including inflating property prices.

Li was also convicted in May of accepting $4.8 million in gifts. Li's execution will be suspended for two years, indicating that it will likely be commuted to life imprisonment. The Chinese government has focused recently on cracking down on corrupt officials and launched a campaign to stop such corruption. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] A high-level Nepalese commission probing the crackdown on the pro-democracy uprising [JURIST report; JURIST news archive] in April of this year that eventually led to the restoration of parliamentary government summoned three former royal ministers Sunday, including a top deputy of King Gyanendra [official profile]. The three members of the King’s former royal government who face questioning for their role in suppressing the people’s revolt in April are Dr Tulsi Giri, Badri Mandal and Nikshya SJB Rana. Giri was vice-chairman of the royal government and a hardliner considered to be a stanch supporter of absolute monarchy.

The former royal ministers have been asked to be present before the commission’s office in person on Tuesday before 11 AM local time. The probe commission has held them responsible for the killing of 21 protestors and the injuring of some five thousand more during the 19-day long pro-democracy campaign.

Led by former Supreme Court Justice Krishna Jung Rayamajhi, the Commission was formed on May 5 to investigate human rights violations and misuse of state coffers by the King’s government. It plans to interrogate several former royal ministers, King Gyanendra’s top aides and security officials in connection with their roles in suppressing the pro-democracy movement.

Kiran Chapagain is a special correspondent for JURIST writing from Nepal. He is an Assistant Senior Reporter for the Kathmandu Post.

[JURIST] Several US senators condemned parts of a national reconciliation proposal [JURIST report] designed to end the Iraqi insurgency and facilitate reconstruction, which was unveiled to the Iraqi parliament Sunday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki [BBC profile]. US lawmakers particularly criticized a part of the plan that grants amnesty to insurgents and opposition figures responsible for killing US troops, as long as the insurgents have no ties to terrorism. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) [official website], ranking member of the Armed Services Committee [official website], said on Fox News Sunday [podcast], "the idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable." Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John Warner (R-VA) [official website], however, said he disagrees with the amnesty plan but that the US must respect Iraq's sovereignty and right to implement the plan. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) [official website] added on Face the Nation [transcript, PDF] that he hopes Maliki's final reconciliation plan will remove granting amnesty to insurgents responsible for US deaths because the plan will "run into solid opposition" in the US.

Maliki addressed the Iraqi parliament Sunday on a new national reconciliation plan after having released 2,300 detainees [JURIST report] in US and Iraqi custody in recent weeks to encourage reconciliation. The new proposal includes broad efforts to stop human rights violations, improve prison conditions, remove political obstacles for groups that have no ties to terrorism, compensate victims of violent crimes, make the judiciary independent in order to prosecute criminals and make the armed forces independent of political ties. AP has more.