 |
|

Legal news from Monday, June 18, 2007 |
 |
|


UN war crimes tribunals call for cooperation in catching fugitives
Leslie Schulman on June 18, 2007 8:00 PM ET

[JURIST] Senior UN officials from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official websites] Monday urged [press release] countries to cooperate in the capture of numerous fugitives who remain at large. Carla Del Ponte, top prosecutor for the ICTY, said that many senior leaders responsible for the most serious crimes committed during the Balkan wars in 1991 have been prosecuted, but others still remain at large [speech transcript; press release], including Ratko Mladic [ICTY case backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [ICTY case backgrounder; BBC profile]. Hassan Jallow, prosecutor for the ICTR, also stepped up the pressure to bring to justice war crimes fugitive Felicien Kabuga [Trial Watch profile], who is thought to be in Kenya. Jallow called for the Kenyan government to arrest Kabuga and hand him over to the tribunal.
Officials from both tribunals have put pressure on countries in the past [JURIST report] to assist in the arrest and transfer of war crimes fugitives. Serbia [JURIST news archive] especially has come under increased international pressure from the European Union and the United States to prosecute war criminals and arrest war crimes fugitives. Last month, Serbian President Boris Tadic [official website] announced the creation of the National Security Council, a special body headed by the president that will coordinate police and military security resources to hunt for suspected war criminals. Monday's requests come as the UN Security Council discusses winding down the two tribunals. The ICTR is expected to finish its work by 2009, and the ICTY by 2010. The UN News Service has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN Hariri panel to probe killing of Lebanon MP
Leslie Schulman on June 18, 2007 7:08 PM ET

[JURIST] The UN Security Council [official website] said Monday it has approved a request [letter, PDF] by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora [BBC profile] to aid his country in the investigation of the murder of anti-Syrian legislator Walid Eido [BBC report] last week. Eido, who was a member of the Lebanese Parliament, was killed last Wednesday when his car exploded at a beach in Beirut, also killing his son and at least six other people. Siniora had asked [letter, PDF] Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for "technical assistance" from the UN International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC) [UN materials], who submitted the request to the Council. This month's Council president, Belgium UN Ambassador Johan Verbeke [official profile], approved the request, asking the Commission to "extend appropriate technical assistance to the Lebanese authorities," and adding that the Council is "determined to continue to assist the Government of Lebanon in the search for the truth and to bring to justice perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of that terrorist attack and of other terrorist attacks and assassinations committed in Lebanon since October 2004."
The IIIC was established unanimously in 2005 [UN press release] to assist the Lebanese government in its investigation into the terrorist bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri [JURIST news archive] in February of that same year. The commission was established after the UN found that the Lebanese-run investigation was seriously flawed. Eido's murder is the latest in a series of killings of Lebanese political leaders, including those of Hariri and cabinet member Pierre Gemayel [BBC report] last year. Eido's death came two weeks after the Council narrowly approved a resolution [JURIST report] to establish an ad hoc international tribunal to try suspects in the Hariri assassination. The IIIC is currently conducting 16 investigations. Reuters has more. The UN News Service has additional coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US open to cluster munitions limitations, still opposes complete ban
Michael Sung on June 18, 2007 2:24 PM ET

[JURIST] The US delegation [official website] to the Meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts [official website] for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) [PDF text] said Monday that the United States will not support a ban on the use of cluster munitions [FAS backgrounder; JURIST news archive], but is open to negotiations to reduce the humanitarian impact by requiring the increased reliability, accuracy and visibility of unexploded munitions. The US has also rejected new treaties specifically aimed at cluster munitions, arguing that the CCW Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War [PDF text] already covers concerns that unexploded cluster munitions may inflict post-conflict casualties on civilians.
In February, a State Department spokesperson said the US rejected an international call [JURIST reports] to ban cluster munitions, telling reporters at a daily press briefing [text; recorded video] that the United States "takes the position that [cluster] munitions do have a place and a use in military inventories." Also in February, 46 of 49 countries participating in the two-day Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions [conference materials] agreed to an action plan to develop a new international treaty [press release] to ban the use of cluster munitions by 2008. Romania, Poland and Japan refused to sign the Oslo Declaration [PDF text]. The United States, Russia, Israel, and China chose not to attend the conference. Cluster munitions are considered by many to be inaccurate weapons designed to spread damage indiscriminately and could therefore be considered illegal [CMC backgrounder] under multiple provisions of Protocol I [text] of the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials]. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Canada court allows "mad cow" class action suit
Michael Sung on June 18, 2007 11:45 AM ET

[JURIST] The Superior Court of Quebec [official website] has ruled that some 20,000 cattle breeders can proceed with their class action lawsuit [CTV report] against the federal government of Canada for its handling of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) [USDA backgrounder, PDF], otherwise known as "mad cow" disease [CBC backgrounder]. The suit, which could eventually include over 100,000 farmers, alleges that the Canadian government was negligent by allowing cattle infected with BSE to be imported from the UK, and subsequently failing to inform the public or the cattle industry. The lawsuit is the first class action against the government over mad cow disease, which first appeared in Canada in May 2003.
In 1997, the Canadian government implemented regulations prohibiting the feeding of cattle with feed made from cattle body parts. The regulations, however, were not heavily enforced and violators were not required to pay fines before July 2005. The outbreak of BSE, first identified in 1996 in the UK and linked to the deadly Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) [CDC backgrounder], has encouraged cattle-producing states in the European Union and large importers like Japan to institute strict regulations concerning the feeding, slaughter, and testing of cattle. In May, the US Agriculture Department (USDA) [official website] announced it will appeal a ruling by a federal judge that a meatpacking company must be allowed to test all its cattle [AP report], which the USDA opposes. The USDA currently tests less than 1 percent of all slaughtered cattle in the United States, and the White House has fought to prohibit the sale of BSE testing kits and the implementation of private comprehensive testing standards arguing that false positives can hurt the cattle industry. AFP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

White House says no prior knowledge of Abu Ghraib abuse
Michael Sung on June 18, 2007 11:07 AM ET

[JURIST] A White House spokesperson Sunday disputed claims by retired US Army Major General Antonio Taguba [NPR profile] that President Bush "had to be aware" of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib [JURIST news archive] before the photos [JURIST report] of US interrogators abusing prisoners surfaced in April 2004, insisting that Bush first learned about the abuse on television. In an interview with the New Yorker published Saturday, Taguba said that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [official profile] misled Congress [AFP report] during testimony in May 2004 regarding the scope of his knowledge of the abuse. Taguba said that Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials knew about the abuse and had access to the photographs no later than January 13, 2004.
Taguba, who investigated [report, PDF] the abuse in 2004 and retired January 2007 at the request of Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard A. Cody, said that "the photographs were available to [Rumsfeld] - if he wanted to see them" and that many high-officials, whom Taguba was not permitted to investigate, "are lying to protect themselves." In November 2006, former Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski [JURIST news archive] repeated her claims that Rumsfeld personally ordered abuses [JURIST report] and maintained her innocence despite being the only high-ranking military officer to be punished in connection with the abuse scandal [JURIST report]. AFP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court rules in securities antitrust, auto passenger rights cases
Jeannie Shawl on June 18, 2007 10:07 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in three cases Monday, including Credit Suisse First Boston v. Billing [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court held that federal antitrust laws do not apply to a case where investors filed a class action lawsuit against underwriters and institutional investors for their alleged manipulation of initial public offerings. The Court held that there was a "plain repugnancy" between the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and federal securities law and ruled that "we must interpret the securities laws as implicitly precluding the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in this case." According to the Court, "The buyers claim that the underwriters unlawfully agreed with one another that they would not sell shares of a popular new issue to a buyer unless that buyer committed (1) to buy additional shares of that security later at escalating prices (a practice called 'laddering'), (2) to pay unusually high commissions on subsequent security purchases from the underwriters, or (3) to purchase from the underwriters other less desirable securities (a practice called 'tying')." The Second Circuit's decision [PDF text] in the case was reversed. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Breyer, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Stevens and a dissent [text] from Justice Thomas. Justice Kennedy did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.
In Brendlin v. California [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that an automobile passenger, like a driver, can challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Souter.
Finally, in Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services [Duke Law case backgrounder] the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in reviewing a district court's decision to remand Reliant Energy's price-fixing lawsuit to state court. Reliant filed the lawsuit in state court and after several defendants filed cross claims for indemnity against additional companies, including Powerex, the cross-claimants sought to have the case removed to federal court. Powerex argued that because it was a wholly owned subsidiary of a crown corporation of the Canadian province of British Columbia, it is an instrumentality of a foreign nation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [text]. Reliant argued that Powerex should not be considered a foreign state and the district court remanded the case to state court. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that it could review substantive issues of law [decision, PDF] that preceded the district court's order to remand the case, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit was barred from considering Powerex's claim that it is a foreign state under FSIA by 28 USC 1447(d) [text], the federal statute which states that "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Scalia, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Kennedy and a dissent [text] from Justice Breyer.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|