[JURIST] The judges of the Constitutional Court of South Africa [official website] have filed a complaint [text, DOC] with the country's judicial disciplinary body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) [backgrounder, DOC], alleging that the top judge in the Cape High Court unconstitutionally attempting to influence Constitutional Court judges in a pending corruption case against African National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. According to the judges, Judge John Hlophe violated the constitution [text, Schedule 2, Item 6] by administering justice with favor or prejudice, and in doing so jeopardized South African justice and democracy. The Constitutional Court statement echoes a case last year when members of the Cape Bar called for Hlophe's resignation after an investigation found he failed to disclose that he accepted money from a case party and then ruled in its favor. A hearing date before the JSC is still undetermined [SAPA report]. The Guardian has more.

Hlophe's alleged unconstitutional behavior is in connection with a March hearing to determine whether raids on Zuma's home violated his rights to privacy and a fair trial [JURIST report]. Zuma has been facing corruption allegations [BBC timeline] and other charges for several years; he was first charged with corruption in 2005, but those charges were later dismissed [JURIST report] because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures. In December 2007, South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority [official website] served an indictment [JURIST report] on Zuma, charging him with corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering related to alleged bribes received from arms manufacturer Thint, a subsidiary of the France-based Thales Group [corporate website]. His trial is scheduled to begin in August. As leader of the ruling ANC, Zuma is in a position to become the country's next president when current South African President Thabo Mbeki retires.

[JURIST] A proposed anti-terror bill [BBC backgrounder] that would allow British law enforcement authorities to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 42 days [JURIST news archive] should not be passed as it could set a bad precedent for other countries, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights said during a BBC Radio 4 interview [recorded audio] Monday. Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg [official profile] urged officials to keep the limit on pre-charge detention as low as possible, warning that other EU states might look to UK policy for guidance and noting that current UK law, which authorizes detention without charge for 28 days [JURIST report], already has a limit about three weeks higher than most other European countries. The bill has also faced serious opposition [JURIST report] from MPs and human rights groups, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown argued in favor of the measure in a column for the Times Monday:

It is this nature of modern terrorism and the growing complexity of investigations that have led not just the Government but the police and the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to believe there may be circumstances where it is necessary to go beyond 28 days' pre-charge detention.

The challenge for every government is to respond to the changing demands of national security, while upholding something that is at the heart of the British constitutional settlement: the preservation of civil liberties. And if the national interest requires new measures to safeguard our security, it is, in my view, the British way to make those changes in a manner that maximises the protection of individuals against arbitrary treatment.

[JURIST] A federal judge in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] Monday sentenced leading class-action securities lawyer Melvyn Weiss [JURIST news archive] to 30 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $10 million in fines and forfeitures. The former Milberg Weiss partner pleaded guilty in April [JURIST report] to one count of racketeering conspiracy related to an alleged kickback scheme. Federal prosecutors had recommended the maximum sentence [Bloomberg.com report] of 33 months "because Weiss continued paying illegal kickbacks after he knew that the firm was under investigation and he tried to obstruct investigators by not providing subpoenaed documents." In his sentencing memorandum [PDF text], counsel for Weiss had urged the court to "impose the lowest sentence allowed" under the plea agreement because of Weiss' substantial pro bono work and philanthropic endeavors. AP has more.

Prosecutors alleged that since 1984, the firm had paid up to $11.3 million in illegal kickbacks under a scheme where individuals agreeing to serve as lead plaintiffs in class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits were promised 10 percent of the attorney fees eventually received by the firm. In April, Reuters reported that Weiss' former law firm, now known as Milberg LLP, had entered into negotiations [JURIST report] with federal prosecutors to settle accusations. Three individuals pleaded guilty in connection with the scheme in May 2006 after a federal grand jury indicted [JURIST reports] the firm.

[JURIST] The UN's new Universal Periodic Review [UN backgrounder, PDF] has made great strides in protecting human rights but still has far to go, departing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour [official profile] said in her last address [text; recorded video] to the UN Human Rights Council [official website] Monday. Despite gains in safeguarding rights, Arbour noted that discrimination against women and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities is still a rampant problem worldwide:

Ultimately, the gross inequalities tolerated among and between States reflect the pervasiveness of entrenched discriminatory views and practices. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, color or creed has long been identified as a prevalent and invidious form of exclusion. This discrimination and all related forms of intolerance must continue to be forcefully combated as prescribed in the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.

We must guard against using criticism of a State or a group of States as a proxy for the expression of hatred against peoples, their origins or beliefs. We must forcefully condemn all those deplorable and manipulative distortions that hide sinister purposes, such as anti-Semitic or Islamophobic agendas, or that convey any other form of intolerance. At the same time, we should not hesitate to condemn human rights violations, irrespective of the origins of the perpetrators. We must expose abuse without fearing accusations of insensitivity to cultural diversity aimed solely at forestalling reasonable and fair criticism. This approach must be applied to the actions of all States, as well as to the conduct of groups and individuals.

...

Likewise, a failure to understand or accommodate diversity has inevitably led to an erosion of the rights of minorities and vulnerable people within a country, and those of individuals who move across borders, including refugees or migrants. Fears and mutual suspicions, engendered by the security environment that has prevailed in the past few years, have exposed minorities to additional risks and abuse.

Let me also point out that the perpetuation of prejudices continue to deny equal rights and dignity to millions worldwide on the basis of nothing more innocuous than their sexual identity or orientation, or their ancestry, in the case of caste discrimination. Whether these are explicitly articulated grounds of prohibited discrimination or not, it remains that they are immutable personal attributes, or, as in the case of religious adherence, they are personal choices that could only be forcibly abandoned at an unconscionable personal cost.

[JURIST] Australian advocacy group International Criminal Court Action (ICCACTION) [official website] sent a brief [text] to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Friday requesting charges be laid against former Australian Prime Minister John Howard for war crimes in connection with his deployment of Australian troops to support the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The brief alleges Howard committed crimes in violation of the ICC's foundational Rome Statute [text, DOC]:

It is the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this attack and invasion defined under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv), which is the subject of war crimes allegations....that this decision and action was utterly ‘excessive’ as ‘reasonable conduct’, when considering the potential impact of available options in achieving the stated aim of ‘proving the facts’ of untested assertions of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq.

[JURIST] A federal judge in California subpoenaed a Washington Times reporter Saturday, ordering him to reveal the government sources he used for a 2006 story about a Chinese spy ring. Defense and national security reporter William Gertz [personal profile] cited unnamed US government sources in a May 2006 story [text], which reported that Justice Department officials had approved new charges and an indictment against Chi Mak [CI Centre materials; JURIST report], a Chinese-American engineer sentenced [JURIST report] in March for conspiring to smuggle sensitive naval intelligence data to China. Mak's attorneys objected to the story on the grounds that a federal rule [text] prohibits government officials from divulging grand jury proceedings to outsiders. US District Court Judge Cormac Carney ordered a criminal investigation into the leak early last year, acknowledging that the government was also investigating a possible infringement of a US Code prohibiting unlawful communication of classified information [text]. Earlier this year, Carney found that the federal rule had been violated, but since the sources could not be discovered, he subpoenaed Gertz to testify on June 13. AP has more. The Washington Times has local coverage.

In recent years, the media and the courts have been exploring the extent of reporters' rights to protect their sources. Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy [JURIST news archive] is currently appealing a contempt of court ruling [JURIST report] for refusing to disclose government sources who provided information about former US Army germ-warfare researcher Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, initially identified as a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks [GWU backgrounder] investigations. Last fall, both houses of Congress approved the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 [S 2035 materials], which could become the first US federal reporter shield law [JURIST news archive]. Citing national security concerns, the Bush administration and the US Department of Justice have opposed the enactment of such a law [JURIST report] while proponents, including media outlets, argue the legislation is necessary to protect freedom of the press.

[JURIST] Several Russian gay rights activists were arrested by police in Moscow Sunday for holding events commemorating the 1993 law that put an end to government prosecution for homosexual activity in Russia. For the third consecutive year, Moscow Pride [advocacy website] held events around the city to elude officials attempting to enforce a local ban on gay pride parades [JURIST report]. Organizers unfurled a banner across the street from City Hall reading "Rights to gays and lesbians - homophobia of Mayor Luzhkov to be prosecuted." Other celebrations took place at a nearby monument to nineteenth-century Russian composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky, widely considered to have been a homosexual. Demonstration organizer Nicolas Alexeyev said the monument was chosen to "pay tribute to a person who was gay himself," but noted that the celebration had to be concealed because of societal disapproval for and "repressive" laws against granting parade permits to gay-rights activists. AFP has more. UK Gay News has updates.

Last year a Moscow district court upheld the city's ban on the 2007 Moscow Pride parade [JURIST report], citing the government's right to prohibit events to ensure public safety and prevent public disturbances. The court held the prohibition was legal under Russian law and the European Convention on Human Rights [text]. An appeal is currently pending in the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

[JURIST] US federal authorities are prosecuting significantly more illegal immigrants than in past years, at least partly because of a 2005 zero-tolerance initiative allowing agents to charge almost all illegal immigrants with minor crimes, according to a report [text; press release] released May 22 by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [official website]. Monthly immigration prosecutions based on February 2008 data have risen to more than 166 percent of what they were in 2003, as prosecutors levy minor charges against illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border in parts of Texas and Arizona where Operation Streamline [CBP press release; Washington Post backgrounder] is in full effect. "Reentry of a deported alien" is the most common charge, topping the February general prosecutions list [report text]. The Washington Post has more.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website], one of the agencies involved in Operation Streamline, maintains a number of additional initiatives [fact sheet] to combat illegal immigration. Late last month, 270 illegal immigrants arrested during an ICE-led raid at an Agriprocessors Inc. [corporate website] meatpacking plant in Iowa were each sentenced to five months in prison [JURIST report] and 27 more received probation after pleading guilty to the use of false immigration documents. ICE also carried out a raid in California last month targeting 495 people who had ignored deportation orders, during which several hundred other illegal immigrants were also found; the raid resulted in the arrest of more than 900 illegal immigrants [ICE press release].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down three decisions Monday, including United States v. Santos [Duke Law backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court held 7-2 that the term "proceeds" in a federal money laundering statute [text] means "profits" and not "receipts." Santos had successfully collaterally attacked his conviction under the statute because the government did not prove that he used profits to promote his illegal lottery business. The Court affirmed a decision [PDF text] by the US Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit and explained, "The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them." Read the Court's opinion per Justice Scalia, along with a concurrence from Justice Stevens, a dissent from Justice Breyer, and a dissent from Justice Alito.

In Cuellar v. United States [Duke Law backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that in a money laundering case, the Government must prove that the purpose of transporting money was to conceal it. Cuellar was charged and convicted with violation of an international money-laundering statute [text] after thousands of dollars were found concealed under the floorboards of his car, which he was driving back to Mexico. The Court reversed a decision [PDF text] by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ruling that "the statute does not require proof that the defendant attempted to 'legitimize' tainted funds [but] the Government must demonstrate that the defendant did more than merely hide the money during its transport." Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court and Justice Alito filed a concurrance [texts]. AP has more.

Finally, in Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff [Duke Law backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that after prevailing in a suit against the federal government, a plaintiff may be reimbursed for paralegal services in the amount billed, not just at cost. Richlin Security Service won a suit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the underpayment of its employees and sought recovery of attorney fees and other litigation costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [text] The Court reversed a decision [PDF text] by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that "a straightforward reading of the statute leads to the conclusion that Richlin was entitled to recover fees for the paralegal services it purchased at the market rate for such services." Read the opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Alito.

[JURIST] The US has held terror detainees on roving prison ships [press release] in an effort to hide them from media scrutiny and legal watchdogs, UK prison rights group Reprieve [advocacy website] alleged Monday. According to Reprieve, it is suspected that the USS Bataan, the USS Peleliu [official websites] and at least 15 other ships have housed detainees, though it is not clear exactly how many ships are involved in the effort. Reprieve said that detainees are often interrogated aboard ship before being moved to secret locations in foreign countries. A US navy spokesman denied that any detainees were kept on ships beyond the "few days" necessary for transportation, in some cases. Reprieve also said it had found 200 new cases of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] since 2006 and plans to release a full report later this year. AP has more. SBS has additional coverage.

In 2005, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak spoke of allegations that the US was secretly detaining prisoners [JURIST report] aboard military vessels at the US naval base on Diego Garcia, where the US leases land from the UK. Late last year, the UK House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee said it would investigate the allegations [JURIST report]. In February, UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband said that two US planes landed on Diego Garcia in 2002 [JURIST report] to refuel during extraordinary rendition flights. US CIA Director Michael Hayden [official profile] also admitted [text; AP report] that the two flights landed on British territory, saying that the information was discovered in late 2007 after the CIA reviewed records on the renditions.

[JURIST] An Iranian court has sentenced [Change for Equality press release] a man to one year in prison after police arrested him last year for collecting signatures in a Tehran park in support of women's rights, his lawyer said Sunday. Amir Yaghoub-Ali [Amnesty International profile], a twenty-two year-old student, was found guilty on May 25 of endangering national security and spreading propaganda. Yaghoub-Ali's signature campaign was in support of the larger One Million Signatures Campaign [movement backgrounder], protesting Iran's interpretation of Sharia law [BBC backgrounder] under which women must obtain a male guardian's permission to work or travel, are prohibited from serving as judges, and have their court testimony given only half the value of a man's. Yaghoub-Ali's lawyers plan to appeal.

Yaghoub-Ali was the first man to be jailed for the collection of signatures. In July 2007, leading women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 34 months in prison and 10 lashes [JURIST report] for "acting against national security" and "advertising against the system" for participating in a 2006 women's rights protest [RFE/RL report] in Tehran. In December 2007, two women's rights activists were charged with acting against national security [JURIST report] following their involvement with the One Million Signatures Campaign. Earlier this month, a human rights group condemned the Iranian government for continued harassment and intimidation of dissidents, students, reporters, labor activists and other government critics, and echoed earlier criticisms [JURIST reports] of the government's treatment of women. Reuters has more.

[JURIST] Swiss voters Sunday rejected by roughly 64-36 percent [provisional official results, in German] a referendum initiative [question text, in German; information page, in German] that would have allowed municipalities control over granting Swiss passports without the possibility of appeal for applicants. The Swiss Supreme Court found in 2003 that a similar policy was unconstitutional [ruling, in German] for being discriminatory, but the nationalistic Swiss People's Party [party website, in German] had urged the referendum to reduce the influence of outside cultures on Switzerland and ensure better-integrated immigrants. All but one municipality and 64 percent of voters rejected the proposal, aligning with the federal parliament's recommendation [referendum materials, in German]. The International Herald Tribune has more. Swissinfo has local coverage.

Switzerland already has one of the most involved and difficult citizenship processes [Globe and Mail report] in Europe. Under current Swiss law, municipalities decide the methods by which immigrants may seek citizenship, but applicants must have lived in Switzerland for 12 years and be familiar with the language and culture. Rejected applicants have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.