[JURIST] Senegal [JURIST news archive] has formally adopted a constitutional amendment giving the nation's courts jurisdiction over the trial of former Chadian dictator Hissene Habre [HRW materials; JURIST news archive], according to a Thursday statement [text] by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. The group expressed doubt that the nation has the political will to prosecute Habre, who has been accused of involvement in the murder or torture of more than 40,000 political opponents during his rule from 1982 to 1990. Habre has been living is Senegal since he was deposed from Chad in 1990, and the Senegalese courts dismissed an action against him in 2001 [HRW case backgrounder], claiming that they lacked jurisdiction over crimes committed elsewhere. In April, the National Assembly of Senegal approved the amendment [JURIST report] giving Senegalese courts jurisdiction over Habre's trial. Also Thursday, Senegalese Justice Minister M. Madické Niang said that three judges and two prosecutors had been appointed to the Habre case after a coalition of human rights groups last month criticized Senegal for delays [statement, in French; JURIST report] in prosecution. Radio Netherlands has more. News24 has additional coverage.

Senegal courts have long refused to extradite Habre, despite the issuance of an international arrest warrant [JURIST reports] by Belgium pursuant to its universal jurisdiction laws [HRW backgrounder]. Under growing international pressure to either try Habre locally or extradite him to Belgium, Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade [official profile, in French; BBC profile] agreed in April 2006 to try him in Senegal [Africa Union report] and the government later determined [JURIST report] he would face charges in a criminal court, rather than in front of a special tribunal. In January, an EU official sent to Senegal to advise the court where a trial should take place reported that the trial would not begin in 2008 [JURIST report].

[JURIST] New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo [official profile] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against financial firm UBS [corporate website] on Thursday for allegedly misrepresenting so-called "auction rate securities" as low-risk despite the actual volatility of such investments. In the complaint, Cuomo alleges that UBS led investors to believe they could easily divest themselves of the long-term securities, and that after the company was aware of market instability, they continued to push the funds even though top executives had moved quickly to sell their own holdings. During a press conference on the lawsuit, Coumo said [press release]:

Not only is UBS guilty of committing a flagrant breach of trust between the bank and its customers, its top executives jumped ship as soon the securities market started to collapse, leaving thousands of customers holding the bag. Today we bring the first nationwide lawsuit against UBS, seeking to recover billions of dollars for customers and sending a resounding message to the rest of the industry that this type of deceptive behavior will not be tolerated.

[JURIST] UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced Thursday that he has appointed South African judge Navanethem Pillay [ICC profile] as the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, replacing departing commissioner Louise Arbour [JURIST report]. Pillay, a former judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and a current appeals chamber judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official websites], began her legal career in 1967 when she became the first woman to open a law practice in the Natal province of South Africa. Initially known for her work defending anti-apartheid activists, she successfully fought to guarantee the legal representation rights of South African political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela [Nobel Prize profile]. In 1995, she became the first woman of Southeast-Asian descent appointed to the South African Supreme Court [official website]. The appointment will now go to the 192-member General Assembly, which will meet on Monday, for approval. AFP has more. The UN News Centre has additional coverage.

In March, Arbour said she would not seek a second term [press release; JURIST report] when her commission ended on June 30. Arbour was appointed [JURIST report] to her position in 2004 after five years as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She succeeded Sergio Vieira de Mello [BBC obituary], who was killed in a 2003 suicide bomb attack on UN offices in Baghdad. Arbour served as chief war crimes prosecutor for the UN in the late 1990s.

[JURIST] Officials at the US Chamber of Commerce's affiliate, the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) [official website], said in a report [text, PDF; press release] released Thursday that the system of heavy securities class action litigation in the US is inefficient, unnecessary, and harmful to the US economy. The report says that the current securities class action system forces companies to settle with plaintiffs rather than risk trial, and that it most benefits trial lawyers while harming companies and failing to protect consumers:

This flawed system is not needed to monitor and punish securities fraud: the ample regulatory, civil, and criminal enforcement powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, their state counterparts, and financial services self-regulatory organizations more effectively deter wrongdoers and compensate shareholders without the inefficiencies of the class action litigation system.

[JURIST] The US Senate Indian Affairs Committee [official website] on Thursday held hearings [RM Video; hearing materials] on a bill designed to give Native American courts and law enforcement broader authority to combat violent and sex-related crimes. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and 12 co-sponsors introduced the Tribal Law and Order Act [press release] on Wednesday. If passed, the bill would give American Indian courts authority to impose stricter sentences, expand the courts' jurisdiction to cover more non-Indian suspects, and provide for additional law enforcement training and federal cooperation in addressing the crimes. In a prepared statement [PDF text] for the hearing, National American Indian Court Judges Association [association website] Vice President Roman Duran commented:

Tribal courts agonize over the very same issues state and federal courts confront in the criminal context, such as, assault and battery, predatory crimes, hate crimes, child sexual abuse, alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence, violence against women, and now methamphetamine along with the social ills that are left in its wake. These courts, however, while striving to address these complex issues with far fewer financial resources than their federal and state counterparts must also “strive to respond competently and creatively to federal and state pressures coming from the outside, and to cultural values and imperatives from within.” ... Judicial training that addresses the present imperatives posed by the public safety crisis in Indian Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for tribal courts to be effective in deterring crime in their communities.

[JURIST] An immigration policy reform group Wednesday called on the Northern California US Attorney's Office [official website] to take over a murder investigation involving an illegal immigrant who previously avoided deportation under a 2007 San Francisco sanctuary ordinance [City of Refuge Ordinance text; press release]. Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) [advocacy website] accused San Francisco of being "repeatedly irresponsible" [press release] in its handling of the case of Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant who allegedly shot three people earlier this month. CAPS also said that the city had shown itself generally unwilling to prosecute illegal immigrants. Ramos' case has drawn attention from national lawmakers as well. In a Tuesday letter [text], Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey [official websites] to launch an investigation into the matter:

Because San Francisco’s political leaders have already demonstrated their willingness to act in flagrant violation of federal law, I do not believe that local judicial institutions can be trusted to fairly try the case or mete out an appropriate punishment. Instead, I hope that the federal government will consider stepping in to prosecute the case in much the same way the federal government was forced to intercede during the civil rights period when southern states refused to follow the law or protect the rights of African-Americans.

I suggest that you direct US Attorneys to take decisive action against cities like San Francisco who maintain these dangerous and illegal sanctuary policies. Federal action now might discourage the next potential terrorist or murderer from taking advantage of these local "catch and release" policies that all too often allow them to continue victimizing other American citizens.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] on Thursday convicted [judgment summary; press release] a Kosovar journalist on contempt of court charges and fined him 7,000 euros for revealing the identity of a witness in the war crimes trial of former Kosovar Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj [TrialWatch profile; JURIST news archive]. Baton Haxhiu [ICTY case sheet, PDF] was indicted [text, PDF; JURIST report] on the charges and pleaded not guilty in May. The judgment summary, read aloud by the judge following the trial, notes:

In his interview with the Prosecution, the Accused agreed and admitted that it was against the law to publish the name of the Witness and that he had violated "the rule of the Tribunal" by publishing it. The Accused added that because the Witness’s name was known in Kosovo by a select group of people, he published the Witness’s name to protect the Witness because the Tribunal had failed to do so. In this respect, the Chamber considered that individuals, including journalists, cannot decide to publish information in defiance of protective measures orders, on the basis of their own assessment of the public interest in that information.

[JURIST] A lawyer for Bosnian Serb leader and former fugitive Radovan Karadzic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] on Thursday threatened to sue several unknown persons whom he alleges kidnapped Karadzic last week. Serbian officials have said that Karadzic was arrested on Monday [JURIST report], but Karadzic disputes that date, saying he was first captured on Friday and then detained in an unknown location over the weekend. Also Thursday, a spokesman for the Serbian war crimes prosecutor [official website] vowed to find the people responsible for helping Karadzic evade capture for the past 12 years. Karadzic currently awaits extradition to the Hague to face war crimes charges [amended indictment] before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official site]. AP has more.

Karadzic was originally indicted [text] by the ICTY in 1995, but had been in hiding under an assumed identity until his arrest. Karadzic is accused of being involved in the Srebrenica [JURIST news archive] massacre and other crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats during ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. His capture has been a major goal of the ICTY [press release], and follows the June arrest [JURIST report] of former Bosnian Serb police commander Stojan Zupljanin [Trial Watch profile]. Former ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte [BBC profile] frequently criticized Serbia for its seeming reluctance to cooperate with the ICTY, exemplified by its failure to find and capture [JURIST report] remaining war crimes suspects such as Karadzic. Serge Brammertz [ICC profile; JURIST report] became Chief Prosecutor in January, saying that he would continue his predecessor's tough stance on Serbian cooperation [JURIST report] with the tribunal. Brammertz has vowed to try all war crimes suspects [JURIST report] before the expiration of the ICTY's mandate in 2010.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday held that the REAL ID Act of 2005 (RIDA) [PDF, text; JURIST news archive] gives a "reasonable opportunity" for judicial review to those aliens whose removal orders became final before RIDA entered into effect. Prior to RIDA's enactment, aliens convicted of crimes in the US could request judicial review through habeas corpus petitions [28 USC s. 2241 text], which were not subject to time restraints. Under the terms of RIDA, though, such aliens can only obtain review by filing petitions with a federal court of appeals within 30 days after the court issues a final order of removal. The Ninth Circuit held [PDF, opinion]

RIDA fundamentally changed the system of judicial review for criminal aliens, withdrawing habeas corpus from the district courts and restoring jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. Congress did not, however, amend the 30-day timely filing requirement, indicating that Congress still expected aliens to act quickly to preserve their rights.

[JURIST] The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [official website] argued on Wednesday that it should be immune from lawsuits brought by Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive] evacuees who claim they were injured by toxic fumes released by emergency trailers provided by the agency. FEMA made the argument before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website], which is hearing one of a number of trailer-related lawsuits brought against the agency. An attorney for the plaintiffs said FEMA should be held liable for issuing trailers that did not satisfy federal safety codes, and a firm representing clients in a similar case has said [firm materials] that formaldehyde [CDC materials] levels in some trailers were as much as 70 times higher than safe levels. A US Attorney representing FEMA argued that only Congress has the authority to address possible governmental negligence in the situation. Plaintiffs in the case are also seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. AP has more.

FEMA has acknowledged a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report finding unsafe formaldehyde levels in many of the trailers, but has issued a statement [press releases] saying it did not know of the problems at the time the trailers were purchased and assuring the public that it has taken steps to remedy the problem. Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings [hearing materials; Washington Post report] into the both the government's and manufacturers' actions relating to the unhealthy trailers.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] Wednesday upheld [opinion, PDF] part of a Florida law [text] that requires students in grades kindergarten through 12 to obtain parental permission before they can be excused from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance [text; JURIST news archive]. The court held that another provision requiring all students to stand, even if excused from reciting the Pledge, violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution [text], and is therefore not enforceable. Stressing that the case involved the protection of parental rights rather than those of children, the court stated:

[T]he refusal of students to participate in the Pledge -- unless their parents consent -- hinders their parents' fundamental right to control their children's upbringing. The rights of students and the rights of parents -- two different sets of persons whose opinions can often clash -- are the subject of a legislative balance in the statute before us. The State, in restricting the student's freedom of speech, advances the protection of the constitutional rights of parents: an interest which the State may lawfully protect.