[JURIST] The US will not attend a scheduled meeting in Dublin [official website] to draft a legally binding ban on cluster bombs [ICRC materials; JURIST news archive] in May, US State Department officials told reporters Friday. The US will instead attend United Nations talks in Geneva intended to restrict the use of the munitions, but not ban them outright. In June 2007, the US said it will not support a cluster munitions ban [JURIST report] but that it is open to negotiations to reduce the humanitarian impact by requiring the increased reliability, accuracy and visibility of unexploded munitions. AP has more.

Cluster munitions have been used by at least 23 countries; at least 34 nations have produced more than 200 different types of cluster munitions. Last February, 46 of 49 countries participating in the two-day Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions agreed to an action plan to develop a new international treaty [press release; JURIST report] 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. In February, delegates met again in for further talks at a conference in New Zealand [JURIST report]; delegates failed to agree on a ban but most signed the Wellington Declaration [PDF text], acknowledging that cluster bombs should be banned and pledging to continue talks toward that end at the May conference in Dublin. 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].

[JURIST] Sending British soldiers on patrol or into combat with inadequate equipment could be a violation of their human rights, the High Court of Justice ruled in London Friday. The British Ministry of Defence [official website] had argued that the Human Rights Act [text] does not apply to soldiers on active service abroad outside bases under British military jurisdiction, but Lord Justice Lawrence Antony Collins [University of London profile] ruled that British service members are entitled to legal protection of their human rights "wherever they may be."

Collins also rejected a bid by UK Defence Secretary Des Browne [official website] to gag coroners in military inquests, which would have barred them from using phrases such as "serious failure" when describing a soldier's cause of death as it might open the government to civil liability. The Telegraph has more.

[JURIST] South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal [official website] ruled Thursday that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in court, even when it is found to be reliable and vital for conviction. In doing so, the court overturned the convictions and set aside the sentence of a former police officer who was found guilty of auto theft and armed robbery based on testimony obtained under torture from an accomplice.

The ruling marks the first time the court has prohibited evidence obtained through torture since the adoption of the South African constitution [text] in 1996. From Johannesburg, Business Day has more.

[JURIST] Turkey must speed up political and social reforms to meet the criteria for accession into the European Union [JURIST news archive], European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso [official profile] said in a speech [PDF text] before the Turkish parliament Thursday. Barroso applauded recent efforts to reform [JURIST report] the controversial Article 301 [Amnesty backgrounder; JURIST news archive] of the country's penal code, which makes "insulting the Turkish identity" a crime, but stressed that more and faster reforms are necessary:

However, more progress is needed on a number of key issues, such as freedom of expression, democratic primacy in civil-military relations, cultural rights, trade union rights, women's and children's rights. They are part of our common values, they are central to progress and modernity and, indeed, they are also the keys to accession.

Take the example of freedom of expression. It is a basic, fundamental right in any democracy. But it is also indispensable for addressing the problems of today. Like the EU, Turkey is facing a number of security threats including terrorism. Turkey and the EU are both adapting to globalisation and climate change. These challenges may shake up our habits and question our cultural identities, but in any case they invite us to think about our responsibility in the world, our future and our past. Finding the right responses requires imagination and new ideas. It also requires open and frank debates and strong confidence between institutions and citizens.

In this context, it is not healthy in any society if the expression of non-violent opinions leads to indictments and convictions. This is why I am very pleased that the parliament will soon be working on amending article 301 of the penal Code. Article 301 and other similar provisions need to be brought in line with European standards.

[JURIST] Police in Zimbabwe Friday banned all political demonstrations as tension continued to mount after the country's contested March 29th presidential election [JURIST report]. Independent observers say that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) candidate Morgan Tsvangirai [BBC profile] won more votes than current Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe [BBC profile, JURIST news archive], but Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front [party website] are demanding a recount [JURIST report]. MDC had planned a rally for Sunday, and an MDC spokesperson said that the party has not decided whether it will still hold the rally in defiance of the ban. AP has more.

Also Friday, the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission (ZEC), which has yet to announce official results for the presidential election because of "errors and miscalculations" in their compilation, apparently closed its Harare offices without official announcement. Earlier this month, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) [party website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] to compel ZEC to release the results of the presidential elections, and a ZEC official said in an interview with a state-run news agency Friday that the agency would wait to hear the outcome of the court challenge before releasing the results. IRIN has more.

[JURIST] Pakistani lawmakers introduced a bill Friday that would lift media restrictions [JURIST report] imposed by President Pervez Musharraf after his declaration of emergency rule [text; JURIST report] last November. The bill seeks to remove prohibitions on live broadcasts as well as publishing or broadcasting material found to be defamatory toward public officials.

In addition to the ordinances, Musharraf's government allegedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to order two Dubai-based Pakistani news channels to cease broadcasting [JURIST report] in November. Pakistan's new coalition government [JURIST report], formed by the Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League [party websites], has vowed to restore rights secured by the country's constitution [PDF text]. BBC News has more. AP has additional coverage.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Michael Mukasey [official profile] Thursday disavowed a 2001 memo [JURIST report] advising the Bush administration that Fourth Amendment [text] protections against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply to "domestic military operations." Appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mukasey testified [recorded video] that the 2001 memo is not currently endorsed by the Justice Department and said that the "Fourth Amendment applies across the board, regardless of whether we're in wartime or in peacetime."

The October 23, 2001 memo, authored by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, was referenced in a footnote of a 2003 memorandum [PDF text; JURIST report] on military interrogations, which was made public by the American Civil Liberties Union last week. The 2001 memo remains classified, but the ACLU has said that it will seek disclosure of document. The Washington Post has more.

[JURIST] The Washington Supreme Court [official website] on Thursday ruled [opinion] that the Washington state constitution does not provide a right for prison inmates to starve themselves to death. Convicted arsonist Charles R. McNabb sued the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) [official website] to stop his force-feeding [JURIST news archive]. McNabb pursued his case under the Article I, Section 7 guarantee of privacy enshrined in the Washington constitution [text], but DOC officials argued that they had a "legal and constitutional obligation" to prevent him from starving to death. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the DOC, noting that McNabb was not on a hunger strike but was rather attempting to commit suicide via starvation:

An individual retains a modicum of constitutional protection while incarcerated. However, "many rights and privileges are subject to limitation in penal institutions because of paramount institutional goals and policies." [citation omitted]. Therefore, in accord with holdings from other jurisdictions, we conclude that McNabb retains a limited right of privacy, including the limited right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration subject to the goals and policies of the prison system...

[W]e conclude that the State's interests in applying DOC's force-feeding policy to McNabb outweigh his right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration.

First, the State has a compelling interest in maintaining security and orderly administration in its prison system...

Second, the State has a strong interest in the preservation of life where medical treatment will in fact save the patient's life...

Third, the State has a compelling interest in protecting innocent third parties...

Typically, the court considers the interests of the patient's dependents and family members...

Fourth, the State has a compelling interest in the prevention of suicide...

Fifth, the State has a compelling interest in the maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession.

[JURIST] Sudanese Guantanamo Bay detainee Ibrahim al-Qosi [DOD materials; JURIST report] said at a pre-trial hearing Thursday that he plans to boycott his upcoming military commission trial, becoming the third Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee to announce boycott plans. Al-Qosi declined the assistance of a lawyer, saying that he did not believe in "the justice or the lawfulness" of the tribunal and said that he is only being accused because he is Sudanese. The trial may continue without al-Qosi's presence, with the judge entering a plea of not guilty for the defendant.

On Wednesday, Saudi Arabian detainee Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi [DOD materials] said during a pre-trial hearing that he plans to boycott [JURIST report] his upcoming military commission trial, also refusing legal representation. Last month, Afghan detainee Mohammed Jawad [DOD materials] asked to boycott his upcoming trial [JURIST report] at his first military commission pretrial hearing. AP has more. The Los Angeles Times has additional coverage.

[JURIST] A former top Chinese Communist Party official was convicted Friday of corruption and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Chen Liangyu [People's Daily profile] was found guilty of accepting bribes and abuse of power, making Chen the highest ranking official to be convicted in China's recent crackdown on corruption [JURIST news archive]. He was fired [JURIST report] in 2006 after being accused of involvement in a pension plan scandal, in which some $4.8 billion was illegally siphoned from Shanghai's pension fund.

Chinese prosecutors said last month that the number of corruption convictions against government officials has increased by 30 percent in the last five years [JURIST report]. China has taken a hard line on corruption recently, punishing several officials with lengthy prison terms and the death penalty [JURIST report]. In January, the Communist Party of China [official backgrounder] issued a list of "10 taboos" [JURIST report] for public officials as part of the government's attempt to fight corruption ahead of a reshuffling of provincial leadership posts. AFP has more.

[JURIST] US Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials approved controversial interrogation methods, including waterboarding [JURIST news archive], in secret meetings, AP reported Friday. An unnamed former senior intelligence official confirmed an earlier ABC News report [text] that the officials asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sign off on the lawfulness of the techniques before approving them for use during CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Democratic lawmakers and rights groups quickly denounced the actions alleged in the news reports. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Thursday said [press release]:

Today's press reports bring yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture. According to ABC News, officials at the highest level of the administration in dozens of meetings signed off on specific CIA interrogation practices for particular prisoners - such as waterboarding, slapping, pushing, sleep deprivation, and combinations of these techniques. Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?

Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly said that "History will not judge this kindly." He was right. History will not judge kindly the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation program" or the legal fictions invented to justify it. History will not judge kindly an administration that authorized brutal and illegal interrogation techniques that shamed America in the eyes of the world and put our own soldiers at greater risk.

Congress and the American people still have much to learn about the administration's approval of torture, warrantless wiretapping, and other abuses. Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights.