[JURIST] Two major Pakistani lawyers' groups are pressing efforts to encourage a boycott of the country's January 8 general elections, Pakistan's Post daily reported [text] Saturday. Joining ousted Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry's call for opposition political parties to boycott the elections [JURIST report], the Supreme Court Bar Association (SBCA) and the Lahore Bar Association (LBA) lauded Friday's announcement [KT report] by the ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the All Democratic Parties Movement [Wikipedia backgrounder] to do so, and are planning to have representatives meet with Pakistan People's Party chairperson and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto [official website; JURIST news archive] to urge her to do the same. Echoing Chaudhry's call, SCBA vice president Ghulam Nabi Bhatti said that transparent and fair elections were impossible given the state of emergency rule [JURIST news archive] imposed by President Pervez Musharraf in early November.

Pakistani cricket all-star turned politician and Movement for Justice [party website] party leader Imran Khan publicly criticized Bhutto's decision to run Saturday, telling Reuters [report] before addressing a lawyers' meeting that "It is a complete case of betrayal...Every day she says there is pre-poll rigging, every day she says there can't be free and fair elections. She says she doesn't trust the caretakers, she says the emergency is illegal...And yet she is participating and legitimising the whole process." Meanwhile the president of the conservative Pakistan Muslim League (Q) [party website] Chaudri Shujaat Hussain downplayed lawyers' concerns over the judiciary which are fueling the boycott drive, saying they are peripheral to the central issues Pakistanis are concerned with - basic life necessities and employment - and that politicians supporting the boycott would just be hurting their own interests. APP has more.

[JURIST] Linda Lay, widow of former Enron chairman Ken Lay [defense website; Houston Chronicle profile], formally rejected a US government claim to his assets in court papers filed Friday. In an answer to the government's civil suit [JURIST report] against the Enron founder's estate, Linda Lay maintained her husband did not commit any crimes and that none of the $12.7 million the government is seeking arose from any criminal activity. The Houston Chronicle has more.

The Justice Department originally brought the civil suit in October 2006. Earlier that month, a federal judge vacated [JURIST report; text, PDF] Lay's criminal convictions on fraud and conspiracy charges [indictment, PDF] because Lay died suddenly [JURIST report] of a heart attack in July while his appeal was pending. The judge's decision meant the government could not seize Lay's assets unless it filed a civil suit. The assets being sought by the government include a $2.5 million condo and $10.2 million controlled by an investment firm.

[JURIST] President Bush urged Congress in his weekly radio address [transcript; recorded audio] Saturday to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text; JURIST news archive] in time to replace the temporary Protect America Act [S-1927 materials; JURIST report], set to expire February 1. That Act currently allows the US government to eavesdrop inside of the US without court approval as long as one end of a conversation is reasonably perceived to have been outside of the US. President Bush reiterated his call to include in new legislation retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies [JURIST report] that allegedly gave the government earlier access to personal emails and phone calls without a court order. Bush says he intends to veto [statement of administration policy, PDF; JURIST report] any bill without the immunity protections.

The US House of Representatives passed the RESTORE Act of 2007 ("Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007") [HR 3773 materials] by a margin of 227-187 [roll call] in November, without including the immunity provision. If the legislation passes in the Senate, the RESTORE Act would replace the temporary Protect America Act as the law governing foreign surveillance. AP has more.

[JURIST] The Pakistani government offered to reinstate all superior court judges sacked under emergency rule except for ousted Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry [JURIST news archive] but the deposed judges rejected the proposal, according to a report in the Pakistani Nation daily Saturday. The Nation said Peshawar High Court Bar Association President Abdul Latif Afridi revealed the failed compromise at the bar association's general meeting on Friday and cited another lawyer present at the PHCBA meeting as confirming the offer and the judges' reaction. It was not clear exactly when the alleged offer was made or rejected. The Nation has more.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf dismissed 14 Supreme Court judges, including Chaudhry, in the wake of his November 3 declaration of a state of emergency [JURIST report], replacing them with lower court judges seen by many to be more loyal to the president. On Thursday Musharraf pledged to end emergency rule and reinstate the suspended constitution on December 16, but officials said he would not reinstate the ousted justices [JURIST report]. Legal observers in Pakistan have told JURIST that while the country's main political parties are jockeying for position in the upcoming parliamentary elections, neither one is likely to champion the reinstatement of the deposed judges or the larger judicial independence issue, leaving that in the hands of the lawyers movement. The United Nations and some US lawmakers have called for the reinstatement of an independent judiciary [JURIST report] in Pakistan, but press reports have quoted Western diplomats as saying that this is not the official stance of some Western governments which agree with Musharraf that the Chaudhry-led Supreme Court was meddling in Pakistani politics.

[JURIST] US military judge Col. Peter Brownback has issued a blanket order [PDF text] protecting the identities of prosecution witnesses in the military commission trial of Omar Khadr [JURIST news archive], the New York Times reported Saturday. The order, originally rendered on October 15, was contained within previously unavailable commission documents [PDF text, 694 pages] that were only recently released by the Pentagon. The prosecution requested the measure, citing possible terrorist retaliation against those who testify, and may move to bar any information from the trial that could be used to identify the witnesses. Khadr's lawyer has said that the order unfairly hinders their ability to mount a defense because it prevents him from questioning the reliability of testimony as he is unable to discuss the identities of witnesses with anyone, including Khadr. According to the terms of Brownback's ruling, three weeks before Khadr's trial begins, the prosecution can move to dismiss the order or ask Brownback to extend it.

While prosecutors say they hope to try as many as 80 Guantanamo detainees, Khadr's case is likely to be the first to go trial. In June, a military commission judge dropped war crimes charges against Khadr as improper, but that ruling was reversed in September and Brownback was ordered to hold hearings to determine whether the military commission system had jurisdiction over Khadr. Brownback held a hearing in November, but postponed a decision [CTV report] on whether Khadr is an "unlawful enemy combatant" or an "enemy combatant" until a federal appeals court considers Khadr's civilian appeal in the case. Khadr was detained in Afghanistan in 2002 after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier and wounded another while fighting with the Taliban. He is charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism, as well as spying. AFP has more.

[JURIST] Three United Nations human rights experts joined together Friday to voice their distress over the effect planned constitutional reforms [JURIST report] in Venezuela may have on civil liberties and the rule of law in the country. Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of opinion and expression; Hina Jilani, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders; and Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers [official websites] expressed their views on the proposals in a statement [text] released by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

We are concerned about some provisions of the constitutional reform that was approved by the National Assembly of Venezuela on 3 November 2007 and that will be subject to a referendum on 2 December 2007, in a context where the security of journalists and participants to public demonstrations against the reform is seriously undermined. ...

Furthermore, the constitutional reform might harm the independence of the judiciary, since it is proposed that the dismissal of the Supreme Court's judges would be decided by a simple majority vote of the National Assembly, instead of the two third majority as currently stated in the Constitution.

We call upon the Venezuelan government to firmly commit to the protection of the full set of human rights, safeguarding the institutional guarantees that ensure that democracy and the rule of law will be upheld at all times.

[JURIST] Seven countries on Friday committed to new efforts to protect journalists and their crews in armed conflicts following the conclusion of a meeting in Switzerland of the 194 signatories of the Geneva Conventions. The 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement [official website] focused in part on the role of international humanitarian law in protecting journalists during ongoing international hostilities [ICRC backgrounder, PDF]. In addition to adopting a non-binding resolution [PDF text; summary] reaffirming a commitment to international humanitarian law, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and Denmark pledged to take extra steps to ensure the rights afforded to journalists under Article 79 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 [text]. That provision specifically designates journalists as civilians and guarantees their rights under Article III of the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials], including protections against murder, torture, the taking of hostages, and guarantee access to humanitarian and medical assistance.

The ICRC has noted that while these protections have been a matter of international humanitarian law for over 50 years, greater steps need to be taken [press release] to disseminate information and ensure that the international community enforces the law. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists [advocacy website], 63 journalists have been killed in 2007 [CPJ report] while directly engaged in reporting. The war in Iraq has accounted for 31 of these deaths. AP has more.

[JURIST] US District Judge James Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging measures [text and background materials] adopted by the Prince William County Board of Supervisors [official website] that required local police to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of breaking the law and removed access to many public services for illegal immigrants. The lawsuit [PDF text], filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund [advocacy website] on behalf of a group of 22 plaintiffs - including legal and illegal immigrants - claimed that the measures violated equal protection laws and that immigration enforcement is a federal concern. Cacheris ruled the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they could not show they had suffered as a result of the policies.

The board of supervisors unanimously passed the resolution behind the measures in July. The decision follows a similar suit in Oklahoma, where in October a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] alleging that a state law limiting government privileges to illegal immigrants was unfair to all immigrants. AP has more.