[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Turkey [official website, in Turkish] began proceedings on Monday to determine whether to ban [JURIST news archive] the country's ruling Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) [party website, in Turkish], which has allegedly failed to respect secular principles of the country's constitution [text]. In March, Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya [official profile, in Turkish] petitioned the court to disband the AKP and bar Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul [BBC profiles] from political office. The AKP filed a response [IPS report] to the dissolution petition in May, arguing that shutting down the party would leave a political void endangering Turkey's democracy. Opponents of the party have said that party officials will likely take revenge on the opposition if not banned, but Erdogan has denied the accusations [Hurriyet report], though his party had previously threatened to change the country's constitution [JURIST report] to avoid the challenge. AP has more. Hurriyet has local coverage.

In May, European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering [official website] said [JURIST report] it would be "absurd" for the court to close the party, since it had come to power through democratic means, and EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn [official website] warned [JURIST report] in March that the closure of the AKP could be detrimental to Turkey's effort to join the European Union [JURIST news archive]. The party recently attracted a great deal of criticism and media attention for trying to lift a ban [JURIST news archive] on the wearing of headscarves in institutions of higher learning.

[JURIST] A report [executive summary, PDF; press release] released Monday by Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq [advocacy website] indicates that officials for Palestinian security and military agencies frequently detain, torture and mistreat citizens from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The report, released the same day as a similar report [text, PDF; press release] by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website], states that most of the arrests and subsequent detainee mistreatment incidents are motivated by tensions between Hamas and Fatah groups, and are not legally valid. In the press release, Al-Haq officials wrote:

New trends have included an increase in psychological torture, an increase in arbitrary arrests, and arrests and detention carried out in violation of the Palestinian Basic Law and penal procedural laws. And while government officials have pledged to bring the security forces into line with the law and punish those responsible, the reality on the ground remains bleak. By not taking action against the perpetrators, and in the absence of legitimate and sustained monitoring – internally and externally – of their security forces, these officials are encouraging these illegal practices.

[JURIST] Iranian officials on Sunday hanged 29 people in the capital Tehran as part of what the government says was a push to enforce Islamic moral codes. Government sources and local media presented conflicting reports [Reuters report] regarding what crimes those executed had committed, but offenses ranging from adultery to murder qualify for the punishment under the country's use of Sharia [BBC backgrounder] penal rules. Human rights groups suggested that Iran intended the mass execution to challenge international criticism [JURIST report] of its death penalty policies. Before Sunday, Iran had reportedly hanged 20 people this year, and human rights groups said that the country executed over 300 people in 2007. Last week, an additional nine people were sentenced to death by stoning [BBC report] for adultery and sexual offenses, despite a moratorium on the practice imposed by the head of the Iranian judiciary in 2002. The Times has more.

International rights advocates increased pressure on Iran following the stoning execution of a man convicted of adultery in July 2007. Iran quickly announced an investigation into the judge [JURIST report] who ordered the execution. In January, Amnesty International [advocacy website] called on Iran to abolish executions by stoning [press release]. Last April, an Amnesty report [text; JURIST report] named Iran as having one of the three highest execution rates in the world, along with China and Pakistan. Most executions in the country are carried out by hanging and are related to traditional capital crimes including murder and rape, although an Iranian airport customs officer was executed for corruption [JURIST report] in January.

[JURIST] A lawyer for Bosnian Serb leader and former fugitive Radovan Karadzic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] says he has filed an appeal with a Serbian court to block the transfer of his client to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official site], where Karadzic faces war crimes charges [amended indictment]. The lawyer said he had intentionally delayed the delivery of the filing in order to postpone a decision on the appeal until after an additional pro-Karadzic rally [JURIST report] scheduled for Tuesday. A Serbian war crimes prosecutor [official website] said the court had not yet received the appeal, and that any transfer of Karadzic would likely not occur until after the protest. Karadzic was recently arrested [JURIST report] after evading capture for nearly 13 years. Last week, his lawyer threatened to sue Serbian police for allegedly kidnapping Karadzic [JURIST report] before reporting his arrest. BBC News has more. AFP has additional coverage.

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.

[JURIST] The armed forces of the United Kingdom may have used officially-banned tactics to interrogate detainees in Iraq, according to a report [text] released Sunday by Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights [official website]. In previous testimony before the committee, top defense officials had denied the use of "wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and drink," all of which were prohibited by the UK government in 1972, but recent evidence discovered during an investigation of the Baha Mousa [BBC report; JURIST news archive] case indicated that those techniques may still be in use. The committee called for an investigation into allegations that former Minister of State for the Armed Forces Adam Ingram and Lt. Gen. Robin Brims [profiles] may have lied to the committee:

The evidence we received from Lieutenant General Brims and Mr Ingram formed the basis for the section of our Report on the UN Convention Against Torture dealing with interrogation techniques. It would appear that this evidence was incorrect and that, as a result, we were unable to give a full account to Parliament of the human rights issues relating to the use of such techniques.

We have yet to receive an explanation from the Ministry of Defence for the discrepancies between the evidence given to the Joint Committee in 2004 and 2006 on the use of prohibited conditioning techniques and the facts which have emerged from the Payne court martial and the Aitken report. The issues relating to the death of Baha Mousa are now the subject of a public inquiry. We recommend that, in response to this Report, the Secretary of State for Defence should confirm we will receive a detailed explanation of the discrepancies between the evidence to the Committee by Mr Ingram in 2004 and Lieutenant General Brims in 2006 and the facts which have subsequently emerged concerning the death of Baha Mousa, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public inquiry.

[JURIST] Newspapers in Tennessee, California, Georgia, and Ohio [editorials] and several other states carried editorials Monday in support of US Senate passage of a proposed federal reporter shield law [S. 2035 text, PDF; bill materials], of the law, citing the occasional necessity of source anonymity. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 would allow reporters to refuse to reveal their sources during testimony given in federal cases, except when the information is needed to prevent a terrorist act, to protect national security, as eyewitness testimony to a crime, or to prevent other serious crimes. The US House of Representatives passed a similar bill [materials; JURIST report] in October 2007. The Senate is scheduled to vote on its version before it recesses for the summer, but could vote on the bill as early as this week.

Clint Brewer, national president of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) [official website] and executive editor of the Nashville City Paper, wrote [editorial text]:

The use of anonymous sources is a very necessary part of the reporting process, and the practice has been the only way some of the biggest stories about government corruption, neglect and corporate abuse have come to light at the hands of the American press. From Watergate to Enron to Walter Reed, story after story shining a light on the ills and wrongs committed in the names of the American people would never have been published without journalists being able to protect anonymous sources.

Now, the government in the form of overreaching federal judges and prosecutors is trying to come through reporters to discover leaks of information about the workings of our government — much of it information every citizen has the right to know. The result is that our country, which should be a beacon for human rights and democracy worldwide, is instead jailing and fining journalists for doing their job, for informing the public about the business of their government.

[JURIST] The government of the Philippines reached a peace agreement Monday with rebels from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front [group website; BBC backgrounder], granting expanded boundaries to the country's southern Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) [official website]. In addition to the recognized size of the region, the two sides say they have also reached tentative agreements [AFP report] on the distribution of mining revenues from the region, a timeline for local elections, and the implementation of new regulations. Shortly after the deal was reached, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website] urged the country's lawmakers to push for long-term resolution in the region in her annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) [text; government materials]:

In our 2006 SONA, our food baskets were identified as North Luzon and Mindanao. The sad irony of Mindanao as food basket is that it has some of the highest hunger in our nation. It has large fields of high productivity, yet also six of our ten poorest provinces. The prime reason is the endless Mindanao conflict. A comprehensive peace has eluded us for half a century. But last night, differences on the tough issue of ancestral domain were resolved. Yes, there are political dynamics among the people of Mindanao. Let us sort them out with the utmost sobriety, patience and restraint. I ask Congress to act on the legislative and political reforms that will lead to a just and lasting peace during our term of office. The demands of decency and compassion urge dialogue. Better talk than fight, if nothing of sovereign value is anyway lost.

[JURIST] New poll results [questions and results, PDF; press release] released Sunday by think tank Open Europe indicate that Irish voters do not support a second referendum on the EU reform treaty [JURIST news archive], formally known as the Treaty of Lisbon [official website; text, PDF], and that they would reject the treaty again if the country held another referendum. The Treaty will not take effect until all 27 EU member states approve the new rules, and its future has been uncertain since Ireland rejected the treaty [JURIST report] in a June referendum. Open Europe's poll, which included responses from 1,006 voting-aged Irish, found that 71 percent oppose a second referendum while only 24 percent support one. It also found that if there was a second referendum, 52 percent would vote against it while 32 percent would vote for it. Open Europe Director Neil O'Brien said of the results:

Voters don't feel that Europe's political class have respected Ireland's decision. Their response to the referendum result has obviously appeared arrogant to some voters. By appearing to bully the voters, EU politicians are actually driving lots more people into the no camp.

[JURIST] The Basmany Court in Moscow resumed proceedings Monday in a lawsuit filed by the Russian Federal Customs Service [official website] against the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYMellon) [corporate case backgrounder] under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [text] statute. In a novel use of US law in a foreign court, Russian government lawyers are seeking $22.5 billion in damages from the bank for allegedly laundering approximately $7.5 billion transferred out of the country [BBC report] by former bank vice president Lucy Edwards and her husband Peter Berlin in the late 1990s. Both Edwards and Berlin pleaded guilty [court transcript] to US charges for the fraudulent transfers, but bank lawyers argue [press release, PDF] that its alleged involvement in the transfers would not be covered by RICO, and that the law was never intended to be used by foreign courts. BNYMellon has also said it does not intend to pay any damages awarded should a judgment be rendered against it. AP has more.

In November 2005, BNYMellon agreed [press release, PDF; JURIST report] to pay $38 million in fines in order to avoid US prosecution related to the scandal. Under that agreement, the bank paid $26 million to the government and $12 million to fraud victims, also agreeing to adopt sweeping reforms to address reporting failures under the Bank Secrecy Act [statute text; administrative materials, PDF] and ensure compliance with anti-fraud and anti-money laundering safeguards.