[JURIST] The Singapore Parliament [official website] amended [bill, PDF] the Films Act [text] Monday to allow for the broadcast of certain types of previously banned films featuring politicians or political parties. The amendment will allow political events to be recorded live [CNA report] and will permit documentaries and biographies of political figures as long as they are factual and objective. Politicians running for office can now use films as a medium to promote their candidacy. Films that still remain prohibited involve any parodies of government or politics. Currently there are steep fines of $73,000 or two years in prison for anyone in violation of the act.

Singapore has a history of restricting free speech, particularly speech critical of the government. Last week, a judge in Singapore ruled [JURIST report] that a Wall Journal Journal Asia [media website] editor was in contempt of court and personally liable for damages for publishing two editorials and a letter that criticized the impartiality of the city-state's judiciary. She was subsequently fined. In September, the Singapore Supreme Court sentenced US blogger Gopalan Nair [JURIST report] to three months in jail for insulting a judge. In July, Singapore's government rejected [JURIST report] criticisms from the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute [official website] after that group concluded that Singapore lacks an independent judiciary and fails to meet international standards of human rights by heavily regulating the international and domestic press and enforcing extreme defamation laws.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; briefs] Monday in Yeager v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF], in which the Court will consider whether a criminal defendant can face new prosecution for counts on which a jury did not reach a verdict but that are related to other counts of which the defendant has been acquitted. Petitioner F. Scott Yeager was a former Enron [JURIST news archive] executive who was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. A jury acquitted Yeager of the conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud charges, but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading and money laundering charges. Prosecutors then issued another indictment charging Yeager with money laundering and insider trading. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's denial of Yeager's motion to dismiss the charges. There has been a circuit split on whether such a prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause [LII backgrounder] of the Fifth Amendment. At oral arguments, counsel for Yeager argued that, "Unlike acquittals, hung counts are not verdicts. They decide nothing, and therefore a hung count cannot be inconsistent with an acquittal." Counsel for the state argued:

[T]he government may, under the doctrine of continuing jeopardy, try to obtain a verdict when a jury is hung. The basic principle there is that the government is entitled to one full and fair opportunity to convict and that the hung counts, when the jury cannot agree, interrupt and prevent the government from achieving that. Double jeopardy therefore does not bar the government from completing its opportunity to obtain a verdict.

[JURIST] Advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights - Israel (PHR) [advocacy website, in Hebrew] Monday criticized [press release, in Hebrew] the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) [official website] for allegedly violating its own code of ethics [text] and general principles of human rights by impeding the treatment those needing medical care during Israel's recent Gaza offensive [JURIST report]. In a new report [PDF] the group accused the IDF of preventing the sick and wounded from evacuating homes and medical facilities in pursuit of better treatment during the offensive, leading to otherwise preventable deaths. PHR also said it had received reports of the IDF attacking ambulances, medical teams and medical facilities. In a report [text, PDF] published last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) [advocacy website] estimated that 1,380 Palestinians and 16 medical workers were killed during the offensive and at least 5,380 Palestinians and 25 were injured. 

The IDF's conduct during the offensive has been scrutinized by a number of human rights advocacy groups. Last week, a group of 16 human rights investigators and judges sent an open letter [text; JURIST report] to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile; JURIST news archive] and the UN Security Council calling for an investigation into alleged war crimes. In January, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for an independent investigation [statement text; JURIST report] of possible war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza. International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is also attempting to gain jurisdiction over Israel [JURIST report] to investigate its actions in Gaza for alleged war crimes. Israel has already begun to consider defenses against possible war crimes charges, partly based on accusations [JURIST reports] that it used white phosphorus in a civilian area.

[JURIST] The White House will soon make publicly available three internal memos from the Bush administration detailing aggressive interrogation techniques used against alleged top al Qaeda operatives, Newsweek [media website] reported [Newsweek report] Saturday. These so-called "torture memos" [JURIST news archive] reportedly legally justify a number of interrogation techniques that some say amount to torture. The White House has decided to release the memos because an executive order [text; JURIST report] bringing an end to such techniques removes the need to keep the memos confidential. Current and former intelligence officials have argued against the memos' release, warning that this could compromise national security.

Last week, an article [text; JURIST report] published in the New York Review of Books said that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] characterized CIA tactics used against terrorism suspects as constituting torture in a confidential 2007 report. The report, obtained by journalist Mark Danner, alleges that some of the techniques used included waterboarding [JURIST news archive], sleep deprivation, prolonged nudity, and cold water immersion. Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed [JURIST report] the US government's commitment not to use waterboarding. Also that day, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] released a several memoranda and opinions [JURIST report] from the Bush White House supporting the administration's counter terrorism policies. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [ACLU press release] under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [5 USC § 552 text] in January compelling the DOJ to turn over these and other memos.

[JURIST] The trial of the only captured gunman in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab [NDTV backgrounder], began on Monday. Kasab appeared before specially appointed judge M.L. Tahiliyani at the Bombay High Court [official website] via video conferencing from prison. Kasab confirmed [Hindustan Times report] during questioning from Tahiliyani that he is from Faridkot in the Punjab area of Pakistan. The court also instructed Kasab that he would be appointed a lawyer [BBC report]. He is currently unrepresented as Indian laywers have refused to represent him. Kasab told the judge that he received a copy of the charge sheet explaining the 12 charges against him, which include murder and waging war against India. If convicted, Kasab will face a maximum sentence of death by hanging. The court will reconvene on March 30 to determine whether an extension is appropriate for security purposes in the prison.

Last month, Pakistan officials conceded [JURIST report] that the terrorist attacks were partially planned there. Pakistan also stated that the perpetrators traveled by ship [NYT report] from southern Pakistan to Mumbai, where they launched the attack from inflatable boats using outboard engines purchased in Karachi, Pakistan. One scholar suggested that an international tribunal be formed [JURIST op-ed] to prosecute persons involved in Mumbai attacks in order to avoid further complications to the already unstable relationship between Pakistan and India. In the wake of the attacks, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [official website] pushed for tougher anti-terrorism measures [JURIST report]. The attacks in Mumbai, which claimed at least 170 lives, were carried out at ten locations across the city including the landmark Taj Mahal Palace hotel [hotel website]. The attacks were the worst the city has seen since a group of bombings killed more than 250 people in 1993.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official profile] reiterated his position that US policies governing the detention and interrogation of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees should comport with due process and international law requirements in a Sunday interview [CBS interview transcript] with 60 Minutes. Obama said that polices of the former Bush administration, which gave less deference to these norms, did not effectively help the US bring terrorists to justice but instead generated anti-American sentiment abroad. He said that terrorism suspects would still have to be treated seriously, that they were specifically not due Miranda rights [LII backgrounder], and that the country could not release individuals who still post a threat to the US. Obama said that despite these concerns, he believed detainees' treatment could effectively be governed under existing US and international regimes.

Obama's remarks came in response to earlier criticism [CNN report] by former vice president Dick Cheney [BBC profile] of Obama's call to close Guantanamo by 2010. In January, Obama issued an executive order [text; JURIST report] freezing the military commission [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] system, calling for the review of US judicial policy towards the detainees, and directing the closure of Guantanamo within one year. The Department of Justice has also more recently eliminated [JURIST report] the use of the term "enemy combatant" in a symbolic departure from Bush administration policies.

[JURIST] The peace process in Nepal [JURIST news archive] could be hampered by "impunity for human rights abuses" [UN News Centre report], UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile; JURIST news archive] said Sunday. At a Kathmandu news conference concluding her five-day visit to Nepal, Pillay cited abuses including the failure of Nepal's commissions on disappearances and truth and reconciliation to ensure justice for victims of abuse and recent "arbitrary actions" taken against journalists and other human rights activists. Pillay said:

The demands of victims' families are not mere wishes they are supported by law. And until these demands for justice are fulfilled and accountability for past, and in particular ongoing, violations is ensured, a truly new Nepal will not emerge, and indeed, the peace process could be jeopardised.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] on Friday upheld [opinion; PDF] as procedural three rules promulgated by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) [official website] that significantly alter the patent application process, overturning a fourth rule. The four rules, which would have retroactively limited the number of claims that can be included in a patent application and the number of times a continuation application can be filed for a given invention, were struck down [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia [official website] in April on the grounds that they altered the substantive rights of the intellectual property applicants set forth under the US Patent Act [35 USC §§ 1-376 text]. The circuit court relied on the framework set forth by the US Supreme Court in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council [opinion] to establish that deference is extended to the USPTO in its interpretation of the Patent Act for the purposes of determining procedural standards. The court then upheld Rules 17, 114, and 265, classifying the rules as procedural:

While we do not purport to set forth a definitive rule for distinguishing between substance and procedure in this case, we conclude that the Final Rules challenged in this case are procedural. In essence, they govern the timing of and materials that must be submitted with patent applications. The Final Rules may "alter the manner in which the parties present ... their viewpoints" to the USPTO, but they do not, on their face, "foreclose effective opportunity" to present patent applications for examination.