[JURIST] The major political parties in Serbia [JURIST news archive] have reached an agreement on the text of a draft constitution after weeks of negotiations, Local Government and Administration Minister Zoran Loncar said Friday. Although parliament is scheduled to consider the document on Saturday, few details about it have been made public. Earlier this month, the National Assembly of Serbia [official website] voted overwhelmingly to refer to the province of Kosovo as an "integral and historic" part of Serbia [JURIST report] in the new constitution, and the draft is said to reflect that language.

Serbia's current constitution [PDF text] dates to the regime of Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive], who died in March while on trial for war crimes and genocide. To take effect, the new constitution must be approved by two-thirds of parliament and a majority of voters. Deutsche Presse-Agentur has more.

[JURIST] In his first major speech to parliament since taking office last week, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe [official profile; BBC profile] followed through on a promise [IHT report] to make amending the country's pacifist constitution a priority. The constitution [text], effectively imposed on Japan after World War II by the United States, forbids in Aricle 9 "the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes" - a restriction that Japan fears could hinder its ability to respond to a crisis [JURIST report] involving, for example, North Korea [JURIST news archive].

Abe said amending the constitution would make it "more suitable to a new generation," and while expressing hope that legislation authorizing a referendum on the constitution would pass soon. AFP has more. The Mainichi Daily News has local coverage.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile; JURIST news archive] told a gathering of legal scholars Friday that the Constitution "provides the courts with relatively few tools" to review presidential decisions about the military and foreign policy in wartime and cautioned judges against "supplement[ing] those tools based on their own personal views." Speaking to the Fair and Independent Courts conference [website] at Georgetown University, Gonzales said [prepared remarks; recorded video]:

As a consequence of the independence that the Constitution's Framers provided, federal judges are relatively unaccountable for their decisions. This is why it is so important that judges understand their role in our constitutional democracy and hold themselves accountable to it. When the Constitutional text demands an unpopular result, judges cannot shirk from their responsibilities. They might be criticized; but that's America. In addition, respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn longstanding traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot - and should not - be shielded from criticism. A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches.

[JURIST] A state trial court judge in Boston ruled Friday that two women from Rhode Island may marry in Massachusetts [JURIST news archive] despite the Commonwealth's 1913 statute [text] forbidding the marriage of couples who can't legally wed in their home states. Judge Thomas Connolly of Suffolk Superior Court ruled [opinion, PDF] that Rhode Island does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] through its state constitution, statutes or appellate court decisions. Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly [official website], who said he did not plan to appeal the ruling, had argued [AG brief] that gender-specific terms in Rhode Island's marriage-related statutes [text] showed lawmakers' intent to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs, Mary Norton and Mary Becker [GLAD profiles], sued after they were denied a marriage license on the basis of the 1913 law. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website], which represented the women [JURIST report], praised the decision [press release] as "as another step toward marriage equality."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on the case in June, holding [JURIST report] that couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont could be barred from marrying in the Commonwealth, but remanding the issue involving New York and Rhode Island residents to the Superior Court. Whether Rhode Island will recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere is uncertain, but state Attorney General Patrick Lynch suggested in a 2004 opinion [text] that it would unless "unless doing so would run contrary to the strong public policy of this State." AP has more. The Boston Globe has local coverage.

[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak [official profile, DOC; JURIST news archive] said Friday that the military commissions bill [JURIST news archive] approved [JURIST report] by the US Senate Thursday could lead to abuses because it does not sufficiently constrain harsh interrogation methods and strips detainees of the ability to challenge their imprisonment through habeas corpus petitions. Speaking to Reuters, Nowak criticized the failure of the proposed legislation, which still has be passed by the US House of Representatives, to incorporate repeatedly-articulated concerns of the UN and the international community.

Several human rights groups have also voiced disapproval of the measure already, including Amnesty International [advocacy website], which has accused lawmakers [press release] of "put[ting] the American people through a maze that led to a faulty policy and, in the process, lost a little more of its standing with the global community and the American public." Reuters has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. [official profile] ruled Thursday that 230,000 recipients of Medicare premium refunds issued in error be given an opportunity to apply for an exemption from repayment [press release, PDF] before the government can collect the money. Kennedy issued a preliminary injunction Dr. Mark McClellan [Wikipedia profile], Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [official website], to stop pursuing repayment of the mistakenly distributed funds, to return money already repaid by recipients, and to notify recipients of the repayment waiver application.

In its argument supporting the injunction, the Center for Medicare Advocacy [advocacy website] contended that the government's attempt to collect the money was a violation of Medicare regulations [PDF text] that exempt repayment when the recipient is not at fault for the incorrect disbursement, and McClellan has already attributed the mistake to a glitch in the Medicare computer systems. The deadline for repayment of the funds, averaging $215 per recipient, was originally set for September 30. The lawsuit leading to the ruling was filed by the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens and the Gray Panthers [advocacy websites]. The New York Times has more.

[JURIST] The US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] in Atlanta has ruled [opinion, PDF] ruled that a plaintiff is permitted to bring a class-action lawsuit against a carpet manufacturer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO) [text]. The plaintiff claims that Mohawk Industries [corporate website] knowingly hired illegal aliens and assisted them in evading immigration officials and law enforcement, allowing it to reduce labor costs and to discourage workers' compensation claims in violation of state and federal RICO statutes. For civil liability to attach under RICO, the defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" affairs of a larger enterprise beyond its own internal affairs. The court held Wednesday that Mohawk's use of a third-party recruiter to hire and conceal illegal aliens satisfied the requirement in light of the US Supreme Court's decision [JURIST report] last term in Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.

The case [Duke Law case backgrounder] previously reached the Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on an interlocutory appeal on the issue of whether the manufacturer qualified as an "enterprise" for purposes of RICO statutes. The court dismissed the petition for certiorari [order, PDF] as improvidently granted and remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit, which originally affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's holding that the company constituted an "enterprise." AP has more.

[JURIST] Amnesty International [advocacy website] accused Pakistan [JURIST news archive] Friday of committing numerous human rights violations in support of the US-led "war on terror," including arresting terror suspects and holding them in secret locations until they can be sold to US authorities for bounties [US flyer offering rewards]. In its latest report [executive summary; full text] it claims that many suspects arrested in Pakistan are transferred to Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan, putting them at risk for torture and unlawful transfer to third countries.

In a recently released book, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf [official website; BBC profile] revealed that his country had captured 689 terror suspects and had transferred 369 of them to American authorities. AP has more.

[JURIST] Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs [official website, in English] said Thursday that it was "deeply worried" about the proposed construction of a 700-mile border fence [JURIST news archive] between the US and Mexico, fearing it would "increase tension in border communities." Mexico [JURIST news archive] reiterated the need for a comprehensive immigration strategy, arguing that this security-focused measure was simply a political answer. The department issued a statement [press release] saying "these measures will harm the bilateral relationship. They are against the spirit of co-operation that is needed to guarantee security on the common border." Both Mexican President Vincente Fox and President-elect Felipe Calderon have spoken out against the measure. AP has more.

Meanwhile, US Senators voted 71-28 [roll call] Thursday to limit debate on its version of the border fence bill [HR 6061, PDF text] in an effort to push it through before the upcoming Congressional recess. A floor vote could come Friday or Saturday, but it is uncertain if there will be enough time left in the session for the House to accept the Senate's changes to its measure, passed [JURIST report] earlier this month. AP has more.

[JURIST] A brother-in-law of the new chief judge in the Saddam Hussein genocide trial [JURIST news archive] was shot and killed Friday in Baghdad. His nephew was seriously wounded in the same attack. Police were not certain whether the attack was a result of Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa's position on the Iraqi High Tribunal, but sources familiar with court procedure believe an appeals panel will now consider whether the judge may be prejudiced against the defendants in light of the shootings. The previous chief judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, was replaced after he said in court that Hussein was not a dictator [JURIST reports].

In the past year, three lawyers representing Hussein and his seven co-defendants have been killed [JURIST report], and international observers have questioned whether the defendants will receive a fair trial amid the violence. The genocide trial, Hussein's second, has been adjourned until October 9 [JURIST report] to give the defendants time to instruct court-appointed counsel or to persuade their own lawyers to end their boycott of the proceedings [JURIST report] begun in response to the new judge's appointment. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act [HR 5825 text, PDF] Thursday night, voting 232-191 [roll call] mostly along party lines. The bill, approved by the House Judiciary Committee [JURIST report] last week, specifies when and how the president can order the use of warrantless surveillance [JURIST news archive]. Under the legislation, warrantless surveillance would be justified following an "armed attack" or a "terrorist attack," or if the president perceives an "imminent threat of attack." The government could use the measures for up to 90 days after an armed attack and up to 90 days when the president declares an imminent threat. Warrantless surveillance could be extended indefinitely by 90-day periods with congressional and court oversight.

Critics of the legislation argue that it would grant too much authority to the executive branch and threatens the civil liberties of Americans, while supporters believe it would improve congressional oversight and make the nation safer. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) [official website] charged that provisions in the bill's fine print grant the administration authority to "demand personal records without court review" and hinder legal action against wiretapping. The Senate has so far been unable to agree on its own measure [JURIST report] and is considered unlikely to pass legislation before the November elections, which would leave the matter hanging. The current unapproved Senate version [S 3876 text] is broader than the House legislation, granting the president more power to conduct wiretaps. Reuters has more.