[JURIST] A court of appeals in The Hague on Thursday extended prison terms for four Dutch terror suspects convicted in 2006 [JURIST report] for planning attacks against Dutch politicians and government facilities after finding them guilty of an additional charge of membership in a terrorist organization. The court agreed with evidence that they shared a single belief system and made concerted attempts to locate targeted Dutch politicians, including Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende [official profile]. The original eight-year sentence for alleged ringleader Samir Azzouz was increased to nine years after the judges found that he "made it apparent that he despises Dutch society" and "knows no compassion for the potential victims of the acts he planned." Co-defendants Mohammed Chentouf and Nouredine al Fatmi, convicted of aiding in preparation of the attacks, and Soumaya Sahla, who was found to have been an accomplice, also received increased prison terms. AP has more.

Azzouz has been arrested multiple times in the Netherlands [JURIST news archive] and was acquitted in 2005 of participating in a terrorist conspiracy [JURIST report]. The acquittal was met with public outcry, and Dutch legislators adopted more stringent anti-terror measures [JURIST report] prohibiting membership in terrorist organizations and recruiting for such groups. Later in 2005, Azzouz was rearrested with his co-defendants for being in possession of a self-recorded suicide-bomber video, automatic weapons, ammunition, jihad training materials, and a list of home addresses for Dutch politicians [AP report], including Balkenende.

[JURIST] A US Army soldier pleaded guilty Thursday to accessory to murder in connection with the killings of four unarmed Iraqi prisoners [New York Times report] west of Baghdad last year. Specialist Steven Ribordy, formerly a member of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry [unit website], testified at his court-martial that he stood at his post and watched as other members of his battalion carried out the killings, said to have been committed to avenge the January 2007 deaths of two US soldiers. As part of a plea agreement, Ribordy was sentenced to eight months in prison, a reduction from a term of up to five years. Ribordy will also receive a bad-conduct discharge with a reduced rank. AP has more. AFP has additional coverage.

Seven soldiers from the same battalion face charges [JURIST report] including premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and obstruction of justice for their alleged involvement in the killings. Last month, Specialist Belmor Ramos pleaded guilty to conspiracy [JURIST report] for his involvement, admitting he willingly took part in the killings as retribution for the deaths of the US soldiers. Three other soldiers are awaiting hearings to determine sufficiency of evidence for courts-martial, but no date has been set.

[JURIST] The trial of former Yugoslav army chief of staff and general Momcilo Perisic began [ICTY press release] Thursday at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] at The Hague. The trial was scheduled to commence Wednesday but was postponed [JURIST report] due to a procedural glitch in the naming of judges; it was restarted after the court received notification from the UN Security Council that the terms of two ad litem judges would be extended, making them able to hear the case. ICTY Prosecutor Mark Harmon said Perisic was one of the "principal collaborators" of late Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive], claiming [BBC report] in his opening statement that Perisic "created an environment of impunity, wherein his subordinates were encouraged and did persist to commit crimes, knowing there would be no consequences." AP has more.

Perisic was indicted by ICTY in 2005 on charges [indictment, PDF] including murder, persecution on grounds of politics, race, or religion, and unjustified attacks on civilians in the early 1990s in conflicts with Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. As well as being held individually responsible for these acts, Perisic is also being charged with command responsibility for the actions of his subordinates under Article 7(3) [official text] of the ICTY Statute.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] Wednesday called on the Ethiopian government [HRW materials] to release rendition victims in custody or prosecute them in an open court that meets basic fair trial standards. The renditions were the result of a US-backed Ethiopian military intervention in neighboring Somalia [JURIST news archive] in late 2006 in support of efforts by Somalia's Transitional Federal Government [official website] to oust Islamist authorities from Mogadishu. The fighting caused thousands to flee across the border into Kenya, which detained at least 150 people from more than 18 countries. In early 2007, Kenyan authorities rendered dozens of these individuals suspected of terrorism back to Somalia, where they were handed over to the Ethiopian military and questioned by US and Ethiopian intelligence agents. The governments of Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia have all denied illegally transporting and jailing people, claiming they have only taken action against legitimate suspects. According to Human Rights Watch, the rendition victims were denied access to their embassies, their families and international relief organizations. Former prisoners have complained of solitary confinement and accused Ethiopian authorities of torture, including the pulling out toenails, holding loaded guns to their heads, the crushing of genitals and being beaten to the point of unconsciousness. BBC News has more.

Human Rights Watch initially raised the west African renditions issue in March 2007 when it claimed [JURIST report] that the US, Kenya, and Ethiopia were cooperating with the transitional government of Somalia to detain refugees from the recent conflict there. Canada, Sweden and Eritrea subsequently pressured Ethiopia [JURIST news archive] to reveal details regarding foreign nationals it has allegedly detained in secret prisons run in collaboration with the FBI and CIA [JURIST report]. In August last year Kenyan Muslims in Nairobi protested that suspects detained in Kenya had been flown on secret rendition flights [JURIST news archive] to Ethiopia, where "aggressive interrogation" took place at the hands of Americans [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Former Polish leader General Wojciech Jaruzelski [personal website; CNN profile; JURIST news archive] testified Thursday at the resumption of his trial that he had no choice but to impose martial law [Polish government backgrounder] on Poland in 1981. Jaruzelski, who is charged with "organizing crimes of a military nature," among other offenses, read from a 200-page statement [Warsaw Business Journal report]:

I constantly state that martial law saved Poland from looming catastrophe. Martial law was evil, but it was a far lesser evil than what would have happened without it.... The hard decision was motivated by a higher necessity.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday agreed to hear 10 cases [Order List, PDF], including two implicating the land rights of Native peoples, during its term that begins next week. In Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al. (07-1372) [docket; cert. petition], the court will consider whether a congressional resolution [text] acknowledging the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and "offer[ing] an apology to Native Hawaiians" prohibits Hawaii from selling or otherwise transferring more than 1 million acres of state-owned land without settling claims by native Hawaiians. The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled [opinion, PDF] that the resolution imposed a fiduciary duty on Hawaii to preserve the land and enjoined the state from alienating it. The second case, United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410) [docket; cert. petition], questions whether the US Supreme Court's decision in a 2003 case [text] involving the same parties forecloses a holding [opinion, PDF] on remand by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the US government breached its fiduciary duties in connection with coal leases and is liable to the Navajo Nation for as much as $600 million.

The court consolidated two cases, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v. United States (07-1601) [docket; cert. petition] and Shell Oil Company v. United States (07-1607) [docket; cert. petition] involving government reimbursement under the Comprehensive, Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) [text; EPA backgrounder] for remediation of hazardous waste sites. The petitioners are challenging decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding them jointly and severally liable for remediation.

The court also granted petitions for certiorari in seven cases raising issues of criminal law. Those cases and the questions presented are

• Boyle v. United States (07-1309) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], whether provisions [text, 18 USC 1962(c)-(d)] of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) require prosecutors to prove the existence of an "ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity" in which an organization engages.
  
• Kansas v. Ventris (07-1356) [docket; cert. petition], whether a defendant's statement made without a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be used to impeach a witness.
  
• Montejo v. Louisiana (07-1529) [docket; cert. petition], whether an indigent defendant must affirmatively accept appointment of an attorney to invoke Sixth Amendment protection from police-initiated interrogation in the absence of counsel.
  
• Puckett v. United States (07-9712) [docket; cert. petition], whether a defendant's claim, not raised at trial, that the prosecution breached a plea agreement is reviewed on appeal according to the plain-error standard under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [Rule 52(b) text].
  
• Rivera v. Illinois (07-9995) [docket], whether the seating of a juror following an erroneously denied peremptory challenge requires the reversal of a conviction or may constitute harmless error.
  
• Corley v. United States (07-10441) [docket; cert. petition], whether federal statutory and case law requires suppression of a confession given more than six hours after arrest but before the defendant is presented to a judge if law enforcement authorities unreasonably delay presentment.
  
• Vermont v. Brillon (08-88) [docket; cert. petition], whether delays caused solely by a public defender may violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

[JURIST] The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website; JURIST news archive] last Friday ended [decision, PDF] the segregation of five defendants currently in pretrial detention. The decision, released to the public on Wednesday, was a response to an appeal filed by defendant Nuon Chea [PBS backgrounder; JURIST news archive], who argued that the prison conditions were too restrictive. In May 2008, the Pre-Trial Chamber approved the “strict separation between the detainees,” taking away “the right to communicate among themselves.” The judges at that time relied on ECCC Internal Rule 55 [text, PDF], which gives judges the jurisdiction to limit contact between the detainees in the interest of the investigation. They also cited the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website; JURIST news archive] holding in Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui, where the ICC ruled:

[Measures] to restrict the communication and the contact...constitute an important restriction of the rights provided for by the detention regime set forth in the Regulations and the RoR [Regulations of the Registry], and therefore they can be imposed if the requirements of necessity and proportionality are met.

[JURIST] The US Senate voted Wednesday to approve legislation [HR 7081 text, PDF] establishing a cooperative nuclear energy agreement with India. The bill, entitled the "United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act," was approved by a vote of 86-13 [roll call vote], and now heads to the White House for signature. The agreement is an important step for India, and ends a nearly 30-year US ban on nuclear trade with India. India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) [text, PDF], and has developed a nuclear energy infrastructure and weapons systems. The agreement will allow US businesses to sell nuclear technology, supplies and services to India, and also subjects Indian civilian nuclear reactors to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [official website]. The Arms Control Association (ACA) [advocacy website], called the deal "unprecedented and imprudent" [ACA press statement], characterizing it as "a nonproliferation disaster," and itemizing its objections:

Contrary to the counterfactual claims of proponents and apologists, it does not bring India into the “nonproliferation mainstream” and India’s so-called separation plan is not credible from a nonproliferation perspective:
- U.S. and foreign nuclear fuel supplies to India’s civil nuclear sector would free up scarce domestic supplies for exclusive use for weapons production. This could allow India to increase its bomb production rate and accelerate Pakistan’s bomb production;
- The agreement fails to prohibit India from extracting tritium (a radioactive gas used to boost the explosive power of nuclear bombs) for weapons from its “safeguarded” power reactors;
- As reported in the Sept. 18 edition of The Washington Post, India’s nuclear technology procurement practices do not conform with those of responsible nuclear suppliers and they risk the leakage of sensitive information;
- India's civil-military separation plan would allow the free flow of personnel and information between safeguarded and unsafeguarded faciliites [sic];
- Unlike the United States and other nuclear weapon-states, India has refused to sign the CTBT and halt the production of nuclear bomb material. The opposition BJP may not respect the current Indian government’s nuclear test moratorium pledge.

[JURIST] The annual UN Treaty Event [official website], celebrated yearly to promote universal participation in international treaties and agreements, concluded Wednesday [UN News Centre report] after a number of states signed and ratified various treaties and conventions. This year's event, entitled "Treaty Event 2008: Towards Universal Participation And Implementation - Dignity And Justice For All Of Us," celebrates the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. On Wednesday, Cameroon signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [text], while Greece and Iceland signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances [text]. The Convention on Enforced Disappearances was also signed by Laos and Tanzania on Monday. On Monday, Laos also ratified the Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Controls of Goods [text, PDF], as well as the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [text, PDF]. Iran, Switzerland, the Republic of Congo, Zambia, the Philippines, Belarus, and 32 other states signed a variety of treaties and conventions during the week-long Treaty Event. The UN News Centre has more.

According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [text, PDF], proposed international treaties are adopted through the consent of the states participating in the treaty-making process, or by the action of an international conference specially convened for the establishment of the treaty, usually by a two-thirds vote of the participating states. Signatures to international treaties do not establish consent to be bound by the treaty, only the willingness of the signing state to continue the treaty-making process by proceeding with national ratification, acceptance, or approval, and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. More than 500 international treaties and agreements [UN treaty status database] have been concluded since the inception of the UN in June 1945.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] on Wednesday ruled [opinion text] that the United States Postal Service (USPS) [official website] was entitled to immunity in a lawsuit alleging that a postal employee had interfered with the delivery of a political opponent's campaign fliers ahead of a municipal election. The court held that such conduct was covered by a postal-matter exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act [text], which provides that the USPS is immune from "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters." In affirming the district court's decision, a three-judge panel wrote in an unsigned opinion:

[C]ases holding that theft of mail is a "loss" for purposes of § 2680(b) directly undermine [plaintiff's] position, since theft is of course a form of intentional misconduct. We think it entirely reasonable to say, as these cases have, that mail that is stolen by a postal employee is thereby "lost" from the postal system.

[JURIST] Millions of Americans have been effectively disenfranchised because of criminal convictions, according to a report [text; press release] released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] and the Brennan Center for Justice [academic website]. The report found that state and county election officials receive little or no training regarding the applicable laws, resulting in widespread misunderstanding. It continued:

De facto disenfranchisement has devastating long-term effects in communities across the country. Once a single local election official misinforms a citizen that he is not eligible to vote because of a past conviction, it is unlikely that citizen will ever follow up or make a second inquiry. Without further public education or outreach, the citizen will mistakenly believe that he is ineligible to vote for years, decades, or maybe the rest of his life. And that same citizen may pass along that same inaccurate information to his peers, family members and neighbors, creating a lasting ripple of de facto disenfranchisement across his community.

[JURIST] The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) [official website] released a report [text] Wednesday expressing concern over a proposed UK anti-terror bill [materials; BBC Q/A] which would allow authorities to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 42 days [JURIST news archive]. The group said that to decrease the risk of mistreatment, the maximum period for police to hold uncharged suspects before transferring them to a prison should be reduced to 14 days, the period between court appearances of the suspects should be no longer than four days, and those appearances should be in person. The group, which monitors prisoner treatment in Europe under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [text], explained:

The existing - and a fortiori possible new - provisions regarding the permissible length of pre-charge detention in cases falling under the terrorism legislation are a matter of considerable concern to the CPT. The Committee has no intention of entering into the current debate on the arguments for and against the length of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects in the United Kingdom. However, as the CPT has emphasised in the past, in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, the sooner a criminal suspect passes into the hands of a custodial authority which is functionally and institutionally separate from the police, the better. Consequently, the Committee must insist that neither the existing nor any new provisions in this area should result in criminal suspects spending a prolonged period of time in police custody.

[JURIST] The Russian Supreme Court [official website, in Russian] on Wednesday declared [Moscow Times report] the 1918 killing [eyewitness account] of Tsar Nicholas II [memorial website] an act of political "repression." The ruling, long sought by the Tsar's descendants, is seen an exoneration of the country's last monarch, who had been villainized as "Bloody Nicholas" since the country's Bolshevik revolution [MIA backgrounder] which led to his ouster and death. The decision that the killing was political allows for the "rehabilitation" or formal recognition of the Tsar's former rule. The ruling was praised by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which canonized Nicholas and his family in 2000. Some Communist Party leaders criticized the ruling, calling it a rewrite of history. AFP has more. The New York Times has additional coverage.

In November 2007, the court had originally refused to rehabilitate the Tsar [JURIST report] because it found his killing a non-political murder. That decision upheld a September determination [JURIST report] by Russia's Prosecutor General [official website, in Russian] which said that the Tsar could not be rehabilitated, as he was not executed following a formal sentencing by a court or "extrajudicial body." The Prosecutor General's office took control of the case in May after several Russian courts also refused to declare the execution a political killing [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum [official website] filed a lawsuit [press release] Wednesday against Merck & Co. [corporate website] in support of state agencies that were harmed by Merck's allegedly deceptive marketing campaign promoting its prescription painkiller Vioxx [JURIST news archive]. The lawsuit filed in the US District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] claims that Merck's marketing campaign was used to not only show the drug was safe but also to persuade customers to demand the drug, which is an non-steroid anti-inflammatory used to treat joint pain, from their health care professionals. It is also alleged that Merck threatened physicians and researchers who questioned the drug's safety and that the company hid evidence of harmful effects of Vioxx. Florida is the eighth state to sue Merck over its marketing campaign. AP has more. The Tampa Bay Business Journal has local coverage.

Merck has been involved in a stream of Vioxx-related litigation during the last few years, including state and federal lawsuits in Louisiana, California, and additional suits in New Jersey and Texas [JURIST reports]. In September 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed [JURIST report] a class action lawsuit filed against Merck, reversing a lower court's decision to grant nationwide class certification in the case. In November 2007, Merck said that it had agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle all pending lawsuits [press release; JURIST report] regarding its marketing and distribution of Vioxx.

[JURIST] Under a new judicial dress code [press release and text, PDF] that took effect Wednesday, civil and family judges in the Judiciary of England and Wales [official website] will no longer wear wigs during court proceedings. The new dress code also features redesigned robes [UK Judiciary press release], intended to give a more modern and grounded appearance to members of the judiciary. The dress reforms were instituted by the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. The dress code, which was announced in July, affects only civil and family judges, and does not apply to criminal judges. BBC News has more. Reuters has additional coverage.

The reforms came following a four-year debate surrounding the findings of a 2004 report [text, PDF] which found that the public preferred modernization of the judiciary working dress, which a majority of the judiciary opposed. Judiciary members argued that the traditional dress is well-suited for judicial functions because it is "authoritative, traditional and distinguishes the wearer." Other court professionals also argued that "lay members of the public are ill placed to advise on dress" as they have no direct experience in legal proceedings.

[JURIST] Serbian President Boris Tadic [official website] refused to rule out partitioning parts of Kosovo [B92 report], should other options regarding the resolution of a dispute between Serbia and the newly independent state fail. In an interview with Serbian television channel RTS [official website], Tadic said that the option is "not off the table." Alexander Ivanko, the Director of Public Information for the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) [official website], responded [transcript, PDF] to Tadic's comments at a press conference on Wednesday:

Our position has always been very, very clear, and it is not only our position, it is the Contact Group position, and as far as we are concerned, there should not be partition of Kosovo, period. I do not see anything else to discuss about this issue.