[JURIST] The US House of Representatives on Monday rejected a financial rescue bill [PDF text; summary] that would have allowed courts to review purchases of troubled assets made by the US Treasury Department [official website]. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, defeated by a vote of 228-205, would have permitted courts to set aside Treasury actions that were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law." The bill further shielded the Treasury secretary from injunctive relief except for constitutional violations and provided that any requests for restraining orders or injunctions be considered on an expedited basis. CNN has more.

Last week, Senate Democrats questioned the legality [JURIST report] of the Bush administration's proposed version of the legislation, which would have precluded judicial oversight of the asset purchases. Led by US Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee [official websites], the Democrats put forth their own proposal that included the judicial review language. Some observers had expressed concern that the Bush proposal would represent an unconstitutional delegation of the spending powers granted to Congress by Article I of the US Constitution [text].

[JURIST] In a national referendum on Sunday, Ecuadorean voters overwhelmingly approved a new constitution which consolidates and significantly broadens the powers held by leftist President Rafael Correa [official website, in Spanish; BBC profile]. The new constitution [text, in Spanish] gives the president the power to remove Congress in the middle of a four-year term, to control monetary policy, and to seek re-election for an additional term. The constitution also includes plans to tighten control of Ecuador's vital mining and oil industries. President Correa called the vote a 'historic victory,' commenting [Reuters report; official statement, in Spanish], "Today, Ecuador has decided on a new nation, the old structures are defeated." AP has more. BBC has additional coverage.

The special assembly charged with rewriting the constitution provisionally approved the document in July [JURIST report]. The success of Correa's referendum fulfills Correa's pledge to rewrite the country's constitution [JURIST report] after his leftist coalition's landslide victory [JURIST report] in October 2007. Correa's Alianza PAIS party [official website, in Spanish] has a majority in the Constituent Assembly. Critics continue to fear the 444-article constitution gives the president too much control over the economy and the judiciary, which would allow Correa to follow the example set by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez [BBC profile] in using the reform to further expand his powers.

[JURIST] Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on Sunday urged [Reuters report] lawmakers to reintroduce a clause guaranteeing a certain number of legislative seats to Christians and other religious minorities into the country's controversial provincial elections bill [JURIST news archive]. The bill had originally contained the clause, but lawmakers said it was taken out because of uncertainty on how to determine the number of seats to be set aside for the groups. Al-Maliki said that the representation guarantee would help assuage minority fears of oppression, and on Sunday hundreds of Iraqi Christians protested the deletion of the clause. The provincial elections bill was passed [JURIST report] by the country's parliament last week, but still must be approved by a three-member Presidency Council before becoming law. AP has more.

The Iraqi Parliament [official website, in Arabic] has debated the elections bill for months, with a main point of disagreement being over provisions relating to the ethnically-diverse Kirkuk [GlobalSecurity.org backgrounder] region in the north of the country. After several failures [JURIST report], the parliament accepted a UN-proposed compromise [White House press release] allowing elections in the rest of the country to proceed, as former opponents of the plan said they were confident an agreement could be reached to carry out elections in Kirkuk. Earlier this month, Iraqi lawmakers agreed to temporarily divide control of Kirkuk [JURIST report] among the city's ethnic groups until a permanent governing plan is established.

[JURIST] The Assembly [official website] of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on Saturday revoked two lawmakers' prosecutorial immunity for crimes allegedly committed during the country's 2001 ethnic conflict. Hajrula Misini and Hisen Dzemaili [official profiles], both members of the Democratic Union for Integration (BDI), the largest ethnic-Albanian political party in the nation, were allegedly involved in cases that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] returned for domestic prosecution. BDI member Rafiz Aliti commented [IDIVIDI report], "We will respect the will of the parliament, but we will remain consistent in the position that the amnesty law should be fully respected." AP has more.

The BDI was formed immediately after the 2001 conflict [BBC backgrounder] between the ethnic-Albanian National Liberation Army (Ushtria Çlirimtare Kombëtare) [HRW backgrounder] and the FYROM regular military [official website, in Macedonian]. Although the conflict lasted only 10 months, it prompted numerous war crimes allegations and an investigation by the ICTY [BBC report], which specifically examined the events of a rebel ambush in Vejce, where eight FYROM soldiers were killed.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Michael Mukasey [official profile; JURIST news archive] on Monday announced [statement text] that he had named a prosecutor to determine whether criminal charges are warranted in connection with the removal of nine US attorneys, as recommended in a new report [PDF text] by investigators at the US Justice Department (DOJ) [official website]. Mukasey said he had named Acting US Attorney Nora R. Dannehy [official profile] of Connecticut to investigate the removals, as well as senior DOJ officials' testimony about them, because he had concluded that the matter "would be best overseen by an attorney outside Main Justice." Although the report by the DOJ Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility [official websites] "dispelled many of the most disturbing allegations" arising from the firings, Mukasey said, it made clear that the removals were "haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional." The attorney general continued:

It is true, as the report acknowledges, that an Administration is entitled to remove presidential appointees, including U.S. Attorneys, for virtually any reason or no reason at all. But the leaders of the Department owed it to those who served the country in those capacities to treat their careers and reputations with appropriate care and dignity. And the leaders of the Department owed it to the American people they served to conduct the public's business in a deliberate and professional manner. The Department failed on both scores.

Today's report is an important step toward acknowledging what happened, and holding the responsible officials to proper account. I hope the report provides a measure of relief to those U.S. Attorneys whose reputations were unfairly tainted by the removals and their aftermath. They did not deserve the treatment they received.

[w]e also determined that the U.S. Attorneys were not given an opportunity to address concerns about their performance or provided the reasons for their removal, which led to widespread speculation about the true reasons for their removal, including that they were removed for improper partisan political reasons....

We believe the primary responsibility for these serious failures rest with senior Department leaders – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty – who abdicated their responsibility to adequately oversee the process and to ensure that the reasons for removal of each U.S. Attorney were supportable and not improper. These removals were not a minor personnel matter – they were an unprecedented removal of a group of high-level Department officials that was certain to raise concerns if not handled properly. Yet, neither the Attorney General nor the Deputy Attorney General provided adequate oversight or supervision of this process.... Moreover, they and other Department officials are responsible for failing to provide accurate and truthful statements about the removals and their role in the process.

[JURIST] Egypt's Abbaseyya Appeals Court on Sunday upheld [Daily News Egypt report] the conviction of the former editor of weekly newspaper al-Dustour [media website, in Arabic] for spreading "rumors" about the health of Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak [official profile] in an August 2007 newspaper report. Ibrahim Eissa [al-Ahram profile] originally faced a maximum sentence of three years in jail when his trial began [JURIST report] in Cairo in October 2007, but his sentence has since been reduced to six and now two months despite objections [JURIST report] by prosecutors. Rights groups continue to protest his prosecution [AI release], and Eissa's lawyers are seeking to have the sentence further postponed until a final appeal of the conviction is heard. In June 2006, Eissa was sentenced [JURIST report] to one year in prison for publishing a separate report critical of Mubarak, but an appeals court reduced the sentence to a $4,000 fine. AP has more.

In recent months, public critics of Egyptian government policies have been the target of multiple lawsuits for publicly discussing sensitive issues. In August, the US State Department [official website] criticized [press release] Egypt's sentencing [JURIST report] of rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim [professional profile] to two years in prison for defaming the country. In October 2007 , two journalists were convicted of libel in absentia [JURIST report] for writing a story about an illegal land transaction involving the Ministry of Religious Endowments at a secret auction. Under Egyptian law, citizens may file lawsuits against individuals who make statements that harm society, and the accused can face criminal punishment if found guilty. Mubarak previously pledged to decriminalize press offenses [JURIST report] in Egypt, but has yet to do so.

[JURIST] Judges for the criminal division of the Supreme Court of Chile [official website, in Spanish] Friday reduced the sentences of two men convicted of the 1973 deaths of 15 Chilean farmers [Truth Commission backgrounder]. A lower court had sentenced former Army Col. Hugo Guerra Jorquera to 18 years in prison and civilian businessman Luis García to five years and one day for their roles in the killings, which occurred just weeks after former dictator Augusto Pinochet [JURIST news archive] took power. Friday's ruling reduced Jorquera's sentence to five years and García's to three, both to be served under modified house arrest. From Chile, La Nacion has more.

In July, a judge sentenced [JURIST report] former Chilean secret police head Gen. Manuel Contreras [TrialWatch profile] to two consecutive life terms in prison for a 1974 car bombing that killed another general and his wife. In April, Contreras was sentenced [JURIST report] to 15 years in prison for his role in the 1974 disappearance of a political dissident. In November 2007, Chile's Supreme Court affirmed seven convictions and overturned one [JURIST report] in cases involving murders committed by state agents during Pinochet's 1973-90 regime. The court based that decision on the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials], finding that Chile was in a state of internal armed conflict when the murders occurred.