[JURIST] The London High Court revealed in a judgment [text, PDF] issued Wednesday that the US government threatened to reconsider and possibly end its intelligence-sharing operations with the UK if a summary of the alleged torture of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Binyam Mohamed [Reprieve profile; JURIST news archive] was made public by the court. The summary in question consisted of a number of paragraphs describing the conditions and circumstances of Mohamed's imprisonment, redacted from the High Court's judgment in its August 2008 ruling [JURIST report] that the UK Foreign Office must turn over evidence essential to Mohamed's defense. In maintaining the redaction of the passages in question, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones wrote:

Moreover, in the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States, it was, in our view difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters. Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.

We had no reason at that time to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official profile] announced Wednesday that his administration will place a $500,000 cap on executive compensation [WH press release] for companies receiving "exceptional assistance" from the federal government. The statement came in conjnction with an announcement from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner [official profile], highlighting increased restrictions on financial institutions [Treasury press release] receiving government assistance. The US Treasury Department [official website] outlined restrictions, including a $500,000 cap on executive compensation, a requirement that any additional executive compensation be paid in the form of stocks that would be untradeable until the federal government recouped its investment in the financial institution, an increased ban on so-called "golden parachutes" for senior executives, and a requirement of a company-wide policy adopted by the board of directors regarding the approval of luxury expenditures. Financial institutions subject to the heightened restrictions include any institution requiring more assistance than is allowed under a widely available standard program, including AIG, Bank of America, and Citi [corporate websites]. Obama said:

As part of the reforms we're announcing today, top executives at firms receiving extraordinary help from U.S. taxpayers will have their compensation capped at $500,000 - a fraction of the salaries that have been reported recently. And if these executives receive any additional compensation, it will come in the form of stock that can't be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance.

Companies receiving federal aid are going to have to disclose publicly all the perks and luxuries bestowed upon senior executives, and provide an explanation to the taxpayers and to shareholders as to why these expenses are justified. And we're putting a stop to these kinds of massive severance packages we've all read about with disgust; we're taking the air out of golden parachutes.

We're asking these firms to take responsibility, to recognize the nature of this crisis and their role in it. We believe that what we've laid out should be viewed as fair and embraced as basic common sense.

[JURIST] The court martial for seven Polish soldiers accused of killing six civilians in Afghanistan began Tuesday in Poland. The solders are being prosecuted [Gazeta report, in Polish] for violating provisions of Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials], which provide protection for civilian villages that pose no threat to soldiers. Prosecutor Jakub Mytych claimed [AP report] in his opening statement that the seven soldiers launched an unprovoked attack on the village of Nangrarkhel in August of 2007. The trial is expected to continue for several months. If convicted, the soldiers could face life in prison.

Prosecutors formally charged [JURIST report] the seven soldiers in November of 2007. Six of the solders were charged with murder, and a seventh was indicted on lesser charges. Six people, including three children, were killed during the attack. Three women also suffered severe injuries resulting in amputated limbs.

[JURIST] The British Ministry of Defence (MOD) [official website] confirmed Wednesday that a UK Army officer was arrested in Afghanistan [MOD blog post] and returned to the London for questioning on suspicion of revealing secret information to a human rights organization. Lt. Col. Owen McNally is accused [Sun report] of violating the Official Secrets Act 1989 [text] by supplying civilian casualty figures to a woman from a human rights group. A conviction under the statute entails a maximum 14 year prison sentence. The MOD is releasing no further details at this time.

Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] has published very specific data [HRW report] related to civilian casualties in Afghanistan, which US and NATO forces feel undermines their efforts there. The UK Parliament [official website] recently debated security-related reporting restrictions [JURIST report], as opponents have criticized the Secrets Act for precluding important issues from public debate. Corporal Daniel James was convicted of violating the Secrets Act in November 2008. Unlike McNally, James was accused of relaying British military information to Iran.

[JURIST] The Manhattan Surrogate Court [official website] has ruled [text, PDF] that the surviving partner of a same-sex marriage [JURIST archive] performed in Canada is entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased spouse. The decision issued late last week leaves all of H. Kenneth Ranftle's estate to his surviving spouse, J. Craig Leiby. Judge Kristen Booth Glen wrote that she found no legal basis to treat the marriage of the two men differently than heterosexual marriages made in other countries or states. New York has yet to authorize same-sex marriages [New York Law Journal report] within the state, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in Canada and other states.

In May 2008, New York Governor David Paterson [official profile] issued a mandate [JURIST report], requiring that any and all out-of-state same-sex marriages be recognized as legal within the state of New York. This mandate supported an intermediate appellate court ruling in Martinez v. County of Monroe [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], holding that legal same-sex marriages performed outside the state are entitled to recognition in New York. In September of that year, the New York Supreme Court [official website] dismissed [decision and order; JURIST report] a challenge to Paterson's directive.

[JURIST] International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] said Tuesday that Palestinian National Authority (PNA) [IMEU backgrounder] president Mahmoud Abbas [BBC profile] had petitioned the court to exercise jurisdiction over possible war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, but indicated the tribunal would first have to consider whether the PNA qualifies for statehood under international law before addressing the allegations. Under the ICC's Rome Statute [text], jurisdiction in a matter can only be transferred to the court when it involves a recognized, signatory state, or by special approval of UN Security Council [official website]. Israel, the country generally considered to possess the Gaza Strip, does not recognize the court.

Moreno-Ocampo previously said that the ICC lacked jurisdiction over the alleged crimes, but then indicated Monday that the court was nonetheless making a "preliminary analysis" [JURIST report] of the situation. Israel has already begun to consider defenses against possible war crimes charges [JURIST report], partly basedoin accusations [JURIST report] by groups such as Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] that it used white phosphorus [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in a civilian area.

[JURIST] Some terror suspects living under control orders [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] have managed to maintain contact with terror cells, the UK's counter-terrorism law ombudsman said in his fourth annual report [text, PDF] Tuesday. Lord Carlile of Berriew [JURIST news archive] found that even though in most instances a control order cannot be justified for longer than two years [JURIST report] because suspects cease to be desirable terror operatives, evidence shows that, "there are a few controlees who, despite the restrictions placed upon them, manage to maintain some contact with terrorist associates and/or groups, and a determination to become operational in the future." The report commended the efforts of the Secretary of State to explore alternatives to the orders and to seek prosecution and conviction by a jury where possible. Carlile endorsed all of the orders issued in 2008 and noted that "control orders remain a largely effective necessity for a small number of cases, in the absence of a viable alternative for those few instances." Also Tuesday, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith [official profile] introduced a draft order [press release] to parliament to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 [HO materials], which is set to expire in March [JURIST report]. Smith called the control order legislation a "balance between safeguarding society from the risk of terrorism and the preservation of the rights of the individual," and said that the government will carefully review the recommendations made in Carlile's report.

Control orders allow the British government to impose house arrest and electronic surveillance on suspects and to forbid them from using mobile phones and the Internet when there is not enough evidence to prosecute. They were first introduced [JURIST report] by the government of former Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2005 and, apart from being politically controversial, have already run into problems in the courts [JURIST report]. The UK Law Lords ruled [JURIST report] in a series of decisions in October that the government can continue to impose control orders on terror suspects in lieu of detention, but said that some elements of the orders issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 violate human rights. Last March, UK Home Office minister Tony McNulty told members of Parliament that control orders are currently in force against 11 people [JURIST report] suspected of terrorist activity, though Tuesday's report put the latest number at 15.

[JURIST] The European Parliament [official website] on Wednesday overwhelmingly adopted a resolution [text, DOC] encouraging European Union (EU) member states to assist the closure of the the Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] military prison by accepting former prisoners for resettlement. The measure, which passed 542-55 with 51 abstentions, noted that though ultimate responsibility for the inmates lies with the US, EU member states if asked should act:

to cooperate in finding solutions, to be prepared to accept Guantanamo inmates in the Union, in order to help reinforce international law, and to provide, as a priority, fair and humane treatment for all; recall[ing] that Member States have a duty of loyal cooperation to consult each other regarding possible effects on public security throughout the Union.

[JURIST] Vice-chief of US Naval Operations Admiral Patrick Walsh [official profile] will lead the assessment of operations [press release] at the Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] military prison, according to a Tuesday announcement by Pentagon Press Secretary, Geoff Morrell. Walsh was selected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates [official profile], to comply with President Barack Obama's January 22 executive order [text; JURIST report] to close the facility within one year. Morrell affirmed that detainee conditions in Guantanamo "have been in compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for some time and are still so," but that Pentagon officials "take this task very seriously." The review will be completed in 30 days.

Obama has also issued an executive order [text; JURIST report] banning the use of torture in interrogations and shutting down CIA secret detention facilities. Last week, four human rights groups that were granted observer status in August 2004 urged [letter text, JURIST report] Obama to permit them full access to the detention center to asses the conditions and make recommendations, since they have not yet been permitted so.

[JURIST] The European Union (EU) [official website] has concerns over the legality [EU press release] of a "Buy American" provision in a US economic stimulus package [HR 1 materials], according to a letter [text, PDF] sent Monday to US officials by European Commission [official website] ambassador to Washington John Bruton [official profile] Bruton also indicated that the EU would be prepared to take legal action [AP report] if the provision were included and found to be in breach of World Trade Organization (WTO) [official website] rules. Bruton wrote:

As you are aware, the United States and the European Communities are both party to the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). This provides U.S. goods and services access to substantial procurement opportunities in the European Communities and its Member States, in return for access to procurement opportunities in the United States for EC goods and services. I expect that you will ensure that U.S. obligations under the GPA will continue to be observed. I would note that the EC has strenuously avoided any efforts to restrict procurement opportunities for U.S. goods and services in its response to the global economic downturn.

[JURIST] South Africa's Pietermaritzburg High Court announced Wednesday that the corruption trial of African National Congress (ANC) [political website] leader Jacob Zuma [BBC profile, JURIST news archive] and arms dealer Thint would be delayed [timetable, PDF] until after the country's presidential election. The agreement calls for Zuma to apply for permanent stay of prosecution on May 18, and oral argument is scheduled for Aug. 25. The election will be held between April and June, and Zuma is favored [AFP report] to become president. Zuma plans to appeal to the Constitutional Court of South Africa [official website] the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa [official website] to reinstate the charges, which had been invalidated [JURIST reports] in September 2008. The ANC expressed strong support [press release] for Zuma, referring to the criminal proceedings as "the injustices he has now suffered for far too long."

Zuma was ousted [JURIST report] as the country’s deputy president in 2005 after an aide was convicted of corruption. He was also charged with rape, but ultimately acquitted and reinstated [JURIST report] as ANC deputy vice president. In July 2008, the South African Constitutional Court rejected a motion [JURIST report] by Zuma to exclude evidence from the corruption trial. Zuma had argued [JURIST report] that evidence seized in 2005 raids by the Directorate of Special Investigations should be thrown out because the raids violated his rights to privacy and a fair trial. The court upheld the warrants used in the raids, confirming a November 2007 decision [JURIST report] by the Supreme Court of Appeal. He was first charged with corruption in 2005, but those charges were later dismissed [JURIST report] because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures.

[JURIST] The California Supreme Court [official website] announced Tuesday that it will hear oral arguments [press release, PDF] on March 5 in the three cases [case filings] challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 [materials], the ballot measure passed in November [JURIST report] that banned same-sex marriage. The court issued an order listing the three issues to be briefed and argued as follows:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?