[JURIST] The UN General Assembly [official website] voted [press release] Wednesday to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of the unilaterally-proclaimed independence of Kosovo [JURIST news archive]. Seventy-seven member states voted for a resolution that was introduced by Serbia [JURIST report] last month, while six voted against and 74 abstained. The states voting against were the United States, Albania, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. US representative Rosemary DiCarlo said the vote against was because the resolution will not enhance stability in the region, and the US is comfortable that its recognition of Kosovo as an independent country abides by international law. Currently some 50 UN member countries acknowledge Kosovo's independent status, including the US, Japan, and many EU nations. VOA has more. B92 has additional coverage.

Kosovo's constitution [text] went into effect this summer [JURIST report] despite Serbia's argument that the charter of the breakaway province is legally void. Serbia insists that Kosovo is in violation of the UN Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 [PDF text], which reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Serbian state. Earlier this month Serbian President Boris Tadic [official website] state that he has not ruled out partitioning parts of Kosovo [B92 report; JURIST report] should other options fail.

[JURIST] The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] Wednesday affirmed [press release] the 2007 conviction [judgment summary; JURIST report] of Milan Martic [ICTY case backgrounder, PDF; BBC profile] on 16 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of laws and customs of war, including persecutions, murder, torture, deportation, attacks on civilians, and wanton destruction of civilian areas. The Appeals Chamber reversed Martic's convictions on some specific alleged crimes. Martic, the former president of the breakaway Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK) in Croatia [JURIST news archive], had been previously sentenced to 35 years in prison [press release] for the extermination of hundreds of Croat, Muslim and other non-Serb civilians between 1991 and 1995. Both parties had appealed from the first judgment. The Appeals Chamber rejected Martic's argument that the Trial Chamber failed to take into account certain contextual aspects, particularly the aims of Serb leadership, and concluded that Martic's sentence should be upheld despite the overturning of some convictions. In addition, the Appeals Chamber sustained the prosecution's lone ground for appeal, agreeing that soldiers who were incapable of taking part in hostilities could still be victims of war crimes. BBC News has more.

Martic was originally indicted [text] in July 1995. After several years as a fugitive, he surrendered to the Hague-based tribunal in 2002. His trial began [JURIST report] in December 2005 and ended in January 2007. In the original conviction, the ICTY Trial Chamber found that Martic exercised "absolute authority" over the RSK's Interior Ministry and security forces, and failed to prevent or punish war crime violations, and even encouraged the "widespread and systematic" persecution of Croatian non-Serbs. Martic was also found to be responsible for ordering an indiscriminate rocket attack on the Croatian capital of Zagreb, which killed seven civilians and injured at least 200 people.

[JURIST] Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. [corporate websites] announced Wednesday that they had extended [Citigroup press release] an agreement to freeze litigation activity [JURIST report] through 8 AM Friday. According to Citigroup, the agreement provides for

1. A standstill of all formal litigation activity effective immediately;
2. Ceas[ing] any formal discovery activities, and
3. Cooperat[ing] in good faith to agree among themselves to secure orders where necessary in all applicable cases in all jurisdictions tolling any schedules for the filing of litigation papers or court appearances or any other formal litigation deadlines, with the goal of preserving the status quo during the litigation standstill period.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call] Wednesday in three cases, including Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. [Cornell LII backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-1239, in which the Court will review a Ninth Circuit ruling rejecting the Bush administration's attempt to exempt the US Navy from environmental laws [JURIST reports] so that the Navy could continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the coast of southern California. In its petition for certiorari, the Justice Department argued that the decision interferes with the Navy's ability to prepare for war, that national security interests should override environmental regulations, and that there is no evidence to support the claim that the sonar exercises harm marine wildlife. The Natural Resources Defense Council [advocacy website], which filed the lawsuit seeking to halt Navy sonar use due to harm caused to whales and other marine mammals, published a 2005 paper on the impact of sonar on marine wildlife [NRDC materials]. Appearing on behalf of the government during Wednesday's arguments [transcript], Solicitor General Gregory Garre [official profile] said that "no marine mammal will be killed as a result of these exercises" and that "the vast majority of the disturbances predicted by the environmental assessment are temporary and non-injurious." Richard B. Kendall, arguing for the respondents, characterized the case as presenting a "very traditional question of equity jurisprudence": whether the district court's decision is supported by the evidence, in which case it cannot be reversed as clearly erroneous. Responding to Kendall, Justice Samuel Alito suggested there was "something incredibly odd about a single district judge making a determination ... that is contrary to the determination that the Navy has made." AP has more. The Los Angeles Times has additional coverage.

In a second environmental case argued [transcript] Wednesday, Summers v. Earth Island Institute [Cornell LII backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-463, the Court will consider whether a group of environmentalists can sue to have a Forest Service regulation struck down or if they are limited only to suing to end programs enacted under that regulation. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held [PDF text] that the environmentalists could sue against the regulation itself.

Finally, the Court heard arguments in Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County [Cornell LII backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-1595, presenting the question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [text] protects a government employee against being fired for cooperating with an internal sexual harassment probe against a superior. A payroll employee in the Nashville school system was interviewed as part of an investigation into harassment claims against a high-ranking official in the system; she alleges that the official later fired her in retaliation for her statements against him. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit [opinion, PDF], ruling that Title VII protections did not extend to the employee because she was not the originator of the sexual harassment claims being investigated.

[JURIST] Attorneys for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a motion [PDF text; press release] in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] late Tuesday seeking to delay the transfer of 17 Uighur detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archives], hours after a district judge ordered their release [JURIST report]. In the motion, Assistant Attorney General Gregory Katsas and other DOJ attorneys asked for a temporary stay of the order to allow consideration of a stay pending appeal to the DC Circuit. They wrote:

The district court's order ... raises legal questions of the highest magnitude. The order directly conflicts with the basic principle that a decision whether to admit an alien into the United States rests exclusively with the Executive. Furthermore, the district court's order of release into the United States contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that aliens who, like the detainees, have sought to wage terror on a sovereign government - even one other than the United States - are ineligible for admission into this country. Finally, the district court's order threatens serious harm to the interests of the United States and its citizens, by mandating the Government release in the Nation's capital 17 individuals who engaged in weapons training at a military training camp.

[JURIST] The United Nations will not open an investigation into the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive], UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon told reporters [press conference transcript] Tuesday. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari [official website; JURIST news archive], who is Bhutto's widower, has repeatedly called [JURIST report] for the UN to conduct an inquiry similar to the ongoing investigation into the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri [JURIST news archive] which has already led to the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon [official website]. Speaking at a press conference in New York, Ban said that the UN would opt for a fact-finding commission rather than an investigation:

We have an agreement that there will be sort of some commission established under the United Nations, but [we are discussing] any detailed technical matters of who should be appointed as commission members and how it should be funded and how long it should be and what would be the scope. It is not going to be an investigation but we are looking at finding out all the situations on this assassination of Mrs. Bhutto. But we are still discussing this matter with the Pakistani Government.

[JURIST] Former Guatemalan President Alfonso Portillo was extradited [press release, in Spanish] Tuesday from Mexico to Guatemala, where he is accused of authorizing transfers of $15.8 million from the budget of the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense during his presidency from 2000 to 2004. Portillo fled to Mexico at the end of his term amid corruption allegations, reportedly fearing he would not be afforded a fair trial [BBC report] in Guatemala. The Mexican Attorney General [official website, in Spanish] said that after Portillo surrendered himself to Mexican authorities, Tuesday's extradition took place under Article 10 of the Mexico-Guatemala Treaty of Extradition [PDF text, in Spanish] and Article 34 of Mexico's Law of International Extradition [PDF text, in Spanish]. Portillo, who maintains his innocence, has agreed to face the charges and was released on bail [AFP] after his transfer to Guatemala. AP has more. The Guatemala Times has local coverage.

In 2006, Mexico signed an extradition order [JURIST report] to hand Portillo over to Guatemalan officials, but he challenged its validity in court. In January 2008, the Mexican Supreme Court upheld the order [BBC report] as constitutional. Numerous members of Portillo's cabinet have been arrested and tried [Reuters report] on fraud charges during his time in exile.

[JURIST] US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website] agents Tuesday arrested more than 300 people [ICE press release] suspected of being illegal aliens during an immigration sting at a Columbia Farms poultry processing plant in South Carolina. ICE officials said the raid was part of a 10-month criminal investigation into employment practices at Columbia Farms, which has already led to the filing of criminal charges against 12 upper-management employees. AP has more.

There have been several mass arrests of suspected illegal immigrants [JURIST news archive] in the US in recent months. In May, ICE arrested nearly 400 illegal immigrants [AP report] during an immigration sting at an Agriprocessors Inc. [corporate website] meatpacking plant in Iowa, in what federal officials then called the largest operation of its kind. Nearly 300 of those arrested were sentenced to five months in prison [JURIST report] and 27 more received probation after pleading guilty to the use of false immigration documents. Also in May, ICE arrested more than 900 illegal immigrants in California [ICE press release] during a three-week enforcement surge.

[JURIST] Lawyers providing free legal advice to parents of children in China sickened by tainted milk products [BBC report] have been pressured by Chinese officials to stop providing legal services, according to one of the lawyers speaking to the Associated Press Tuesday. The group of at least 100 lawyers, who were told that the scandal has become a "political issue" and should be left to the government, has already helped the family of one sickened infant file a lawsuit [AP report] against Sanlu dairy farm, which has been at the heart of recalls. The Henan court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case, filed last week, which seeks $22,000 in compensatory damages for medical care the infant received for kidney stones after drinking milk produced by Sanlu. The lawyers have also been assisting other families with sickened infants in providing legal advice, but so far no other lawsuits have been filed following the recalls.
AP has more.

News of possible milk powder contamination by the chemical melamine first broke last month [Guardian report], following the death of an infant and reports that at least 50 other infants had fallen ill after consuming baby formula, leading to massive recalls [BBC News report] of both liquid milk products and milk powders. The death toll soon rose to four, and the number of sick infants in China [JURIST news archive] has since ballooned to at least 53,0000. The State Council of China [official website, in English] has ordered free medical care to be provided for sick infants whose symptoms arose after September 12, when word of contamination first broke and the first milk powder recalls were ordered. Parents of many of the children who became sick before that date and who are not covered have sought legal advice and discussed the possibility of more joint lawsuits. Last week, tests performed by China's General Administration of Quality Supervision [official website, in English] found that 12 percent of milk produced by at least 37 companies in China was tainted. So far, police have arrested 18 people [AP report] in connection with the scandal.

[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] said Tuesday that it has begun an agency review [SEC statement] of US financial accounting procedures, including "mark-to-market" [SEC backgrounder] rules, pursuant to the recently-passed $700 billion financial rescue bill [JURIST report]. The SEC statement coincided with the testimony Tuesday of current and former executives of insurance giant American International Group (AIG) [corporate website; JURIST news archive] before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [committee website; testimony materials]. AIG was the recipient of a $85 billion bridge loan from the US Federal Reserve [official website] due to financial instability that many of the former and current AIG officials attributed in some part to the ramifications of the mark-to-market accounting rules. In a prepared statement [text, PDF], Martin Sullivan, who was President and CEO of AIG from March 2005 to June 2008, discussed the effect of the mark-to-market rule on AIG, saying:

The accounting rules require that certain assets be "marked to market." In other words, companies must declare the value of those assets, on a quarterly basis, at the price such assets could sell for on the market at that point in time. Companies must declare these values on their books even if they have no intention of, or immediate need to, sell the assets, and even if they have not realized any actual gain or actual loss. FAS 157, which was adopted relatively recently, set out specific guidelines as to how companies must determine the "market price" of certain categories of assets. However well FAS 157 operates under any reasonably foreseeable market conditions, in the unprecedented credit crisis which began in the summer of 2007, FAS 157 had, in my opinion, unintended consequences. ... [J]ust last week both the Securities Exchange Commission and this Congress recognized the effect of FAS 157. The SEC recognized that FAS 157 can have unintended consequences for financial institutions when markets seize up. The SEC has attempted to provide more flexibility for companies operating and reporting under the rule. In the recently passed legislation, Congress directs the SEC to further examine mark-to-market accounting and grants the SEC authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting requirements.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments Tuesday in three cases, including two raising issues of criminal procedure. In Herring v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; merit briefs], 07-513, the Court will decide whether evidence seized during a search incident to an arrest must be suppressed when the sole premise for the arrest was information later found to be negligently provided by another law enforcement agency. More specifically, the Court must decide whether using the evidence found incident to such an arrest would violate Fourth Amendment [text] protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] last July that such suppression would not significantly deter the law enforcement agency providing the misinformation, because it would affect only the agency conducting the arrest. Representing the petitioner during Tuesday's arguments [transcript], Pamela Karlan told the justices:

Our view is, just as is true with respect to probable cause, the fact that 99 percent of a department's arrests are with probable cause doesn't mean that when they arrest someone without probable cause you say, well, you get one bite at the apple or a sort of "good enough for government work" theory.