[JURIST] A US Army Special Forces soldier facing court-martial proceedings [JURIST news archive] over the killing of an Afghan civilian in March 2008 has admitted to killing the man but argued during opening statements Thursday that the act was committed in self-defense. Master Sgt. Robert Newell of the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) [unit website] was arraigned [press release] and charged [JURIST report] with killing the unidentified Afghan and mutilating the corpse by cutting off an ear. Military prosecutors allege that the killing was premeditated, and that the civilian posed no threat to Newell. On Friday, an Afghan who served as a translator to Newell's Special Forces team testified [Fayetteville Observer report] that the victim had his hands in his pockets while being questioned and subsequently shot by Newell, and that the victim's hands remained in his pockets after the killing. According to defense lawyers, Newell believed the unidentified Afghan to be a Taliban [JURIST news archive] insurgent who posed a threat to him. Newell is being charged with murder and related offenses [text] under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] released documents [JURIST report] describing alleged crimes committed by US soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan [JURIST news archive], but showing that troops believed they were following the law in most instances. The materials were made available in conjunction with a lawsuit the ACLU filed to compel the US military to release all documents relating to the deaths of civilians caused by US troops since January 2005. In 2006, court-martial proceedings against a group of US soldiers implicated in the abuse of detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan ended with only one conviction [JURIST report]. Three other soldiers pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to abusing prisoners at Bagram, two others pleaded guilty at the court-martial and five were acquitted. The Army dropped the charges against three others.

[JURIST] US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] chairman Mary Schapiro [official profile] on Thursday named Robert Khuzami [SEC press release] as the new director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. Khuzmani replaces former director of enforcement Linda Thomsen, who stepped down from the position [JURIST report] last week. Khuzami has previously served as a federal prosecutor in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York [official website], and as General Counsel for the Americas for the international investment bank Deutsche Bank AG [corporate website]. In a statement, Schapiro said:

I'm pleased to have Rob join the SEC in such an important role at this crucial time. ... As we work to improve investor confidence in the markets, our enforcement efforts are vital. Throughout his career, Rob has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to prosecuting wrongdoers and protecting citizens. As a former federal prosecutor, Rob is well-suited to lead the SEC's Division of Enforcement as we continue to crack down on those who would betray the trust of investors.

[JURIST] The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) [official website] said Friday that the US has agreed to return [press release] UK resident and Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Binyam Mohamed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] to the country as soon as his transfer can be arranged. Mohamed was found by British authorities on Sunday to be healthy enough to return [JURIST report] to the UK after stopping his hunger strike, and the FCO said that his return comes after a long-standing request by the UK that its residents held at Guantanamo be returned to the country. It also said that his return did not indicate that he would be permitted to stay permanently in the country, but that it was an intermediate step to help the US close the military prison. The FCO said that his immigration status would be reviewed following his return to the UK.

Mohamed was arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2004 on suspicion of war crimes in connection with his alleged involvement with al Qaeda attacks on the US. The charges against him were dismissed [JURIST report] last October. Mohamed asserts that after he was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to US officials, he was then transferred to Moroccan agents who tortured him. In December, he asked the UK government [letter, DOC; JURIST report] to ensure that photographic evidence of his alleged torture be preserved.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling [opinion, PDF] that dismissed a suit resulting from Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive] brought on behalf of the US against eight flood insurers. The original suit, brought by Realtor Branch Consultants under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act [31 USC § 3730 text], alleged that insurance companies who participated in the Write Your Own (WYO) [materials] flood insurance program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [official website] improperly passed the cost of flood damage to areas affected by Hurricane Katrina onto the government. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] dismissed the suit because two defendants, Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty [corporate websites], were also named in a pending Mississippi District Court case, States ex rel. Rigsby v. State Farm Insurance Co. (Rigsby), alleging the same offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Allstate and State Farm, and reversed the dismissal of those companies not named in the Mississippi suit. Explaining their decision not to extend the first-to-file bar to the remaining six defendants, Judge Catharina Haynes said:

Rigsby does not allege a true industry-wide fraud or concerted action among a narrow group of participants. Rather, looking only at the facts pleaded ... Rigsby implicates, at most, four specific WYO insurers among the approximately ninety-five WYO insurers conducting business in the Louisiana and Mississippi areas during Hurricane Katrina. Thus, Rigsby tells the government nothing about which of the ninety-one other WYO insurers ... if any, actually engaged in any fraud.

[JURIST] Both the Sri Lankan government [official website; JURIST news archive] and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [group website; JURIST news archive] have committed human rights violations by attacking civilians in the Vanni region, according to a report [text, PDF] released Thursday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. The report alleges [HRW press release] that both sides "appear to be engaged in a perverse competition to demonstrate the greatest disregard for the civilian population.” HRW asserts that both sides have violated the Hague Regulations of 1907 [text], as well as Protocol I [text] and Protocol II [text] of the Geneva Conventions [materials]. Violations by the LTTE relate to the confinement of civilians to the conflict zone and putting civilians at unnecessary risk, by both confining them to an increasingly compact area and by employing civilians as forced labor on the battlefield. The alleged violations by the Sri Lankan armed forces include indiscriminate attacks, attacks on the "Safe Zone," and attacks on hospitals.

Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile; JURIST news archive] issued a statement [press release; JURIST report] condemning the deteriorating conditions of those trapped in the conflict-ravaged north, calling for investigations and prosecutions for the killings and other human rights abuses. HRW has repeatedly accused both sides of violations, but since 2007 has focused on the government's de facto internment centers and its role in the increase in unlawful killings and other human rights violations [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] Under the leadership of successive Labour Party governments the UK Parliament [official website] has systematically infringed on freedoms and rights of individual British citizens over the past decade, according to a report [text; PDF] released Thursday by the Convention of Modern Liberty [advocacy website]. The report, compiled by the University College of London Student Human Rights Programme [advocacy website] cites governmental actions that allegedly limit liberties guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights [text], incorporated by statute by the Human Rights Act of 1998 [text], as well as uncodified freedoms. Such limitations include increased use of electronic surveillance on individuals, right to detain individuals for up to 28 days without a formal charge, and a lowering of the standard of proof for criminal trials. The report further finds:

The attack is as broad as it is deep. Over 25 Acts of Parliament and some 50 individual measures are involved. This document is organised around the articles of the Human Rights Act and also draws on the guarantees of Magna Carta, but it is important to remember that many of the freedoms that are disappearing have never been codified, which makes it all the more difficult to keep track of the attack on liberty

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Maine [official website] on Wednesday dismissed [opinion, PDF] charges of making false statements [18 USC § 1001 text] against former Republican National Committee regional director James Tobin [SourceWatch profile]. Tobin had earlier been convicted [JURIST report] in connection with a scheme to jam phone lines to block Democratic voting drives [JURIST report] during the 2002 Senate election in New Hampshire, but was later acquitted [JURIST report] of the charges on appeal in February 2008. After his acquittal, prosecutors charged Tobin with making false statements in relation to the original investigation, but Tobin challenged the new charges, arguing that they were brought simply because of his successful appeal. Agreeing with Tobin, Judge George Singal dismissed the charges, holding that they constituted vindictive prosecution. Singal wrote that given the circumstances and timing of the new charges, there was a presumption that prosecution was improper and that the government had not successfully rebutted that presumption:

"A defendant may establish a vindictive prosecution either (1) by producing evidence of actual vindictiveness or (2) by demonstrating circumstances that reveal a sufficient likelihood of vindictiveness to warrant a presumption of vindictiveness." Although Tobin asserts both actual and presumptive vindictiveness, he emphasizes the latter. Once raised, the government must rebut a presumption of vindictiveness "by showing objective reasons for its charges," such as the discovery of new evidence...

In short, these circumstances present a quintessential appearance of vindictiveness. Indeed, the sequence of events alone might well justify a presumption of vindictiveness; courts view quite skeptically the government’s decision to file more severe charges following a defendant’s successful appeal of his conviction. [citations omitted]

[JURIST] The Moscow Military District Court on Friday acquitted three men suspected of being involved in the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive]. The three men, Sergei Khadzhikurbanov and Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov, were released [RIA Novosti report] after a jury on Thursday found the evidence against them insufficient for a conviction [RIA Novosti report]. Colonel Pavel Ryaguzov has also been acquitted for charges related to the case. The judge in the case, Yevgeniy Zubov, has ordered a new investigation [BBC report] into Politkovskaya's murder, and prosecutors have 10 days to appeal the verdict. 

A lawyer for one of the accused alleged Tuesday that prosecutors had fabricated evidence [JURIST report] and pointed to other irregularities in the evidence including a lost DVD with security camera footage and claims of other prosecutorial misconduct. Since the trial began in October, judge Yevgeniy Zubov has closed and then opened the proceedings to the public three times [JURIST news archive], citing juror security concerns and the presentation of classified information. After Thursday's jury finding, Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged Russian authorities to continue the investigation [press release].

[JURIST] Former Yugoslav National Army officer Miroslav Radic [Trial Watch backgrounder] on Wednesday sued Serbia for the four years and six months he was detained during his trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website]. Radic was acquitted [decision, PDF; JURIST report] of war crimes charges by the ICTY in 2007 and is seeking more than $600,000 in compensation for his imprisonment. Lawyers for Serbia argued [B92 report] that, because the ICTY is not a Serbian court, the country's Code of Criminal Procedure [text, PDF] does not provide for his compensation. Lawyers for Radic argued that he should still receive the money because of the role Serbia played in his prosecution before the ICTY. The ICTY does not compensate acquitted suspects for time they have served in prison during trial.

Radic was originally accused of "planning, instigating, ordering or otherwise aiding and abetting" war crimes in the 1991 Vukovar massacre [BBC backgrounder] in which Serb-led forces executed approximately 260 detainees. Radic was the only acquitted member of the so-called "Vukovar Three" [BBC backgrounder; ICTY materials], which included Mile Mrksic and Veselin Sljivancanin. Last year, Norway agreed to extradite [JURIST report] an unnamed Croatian citizen for his alleged involvement in the massacre. The Serbian Supreme Court in 2006 ordered a retrial for 14 convicted [JURIST reports] Serbians for their involvement in the massacre.