[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas [official website] issued an order [text, PDF] Friday setting a July 30 date for the resentencing of former Enron [JURIST news archive] Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling [JURIST news archive] and setting up a system for victims to share their accounts with the court. Skilling was convicted in 2006 on 19 counts of conspiracy, insider trading, and securities fraud relating to the collapse of Enron. He appealed the conviction to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [court website], which upheld his conviction [JURIST report] in January. Because of the wide-ranging impact of Skilling's crimes, Lake's order requires victims who wish to speak at the sentencing to submit a written summary of their statements in order to condense the opinions that victims and their representatives seek to present to the court during the sentencing hearing. In his order, Judge Sim Lake wrote:

Potential crime victims in the case include thousands of former Enron employees, owners of Enron securities, and other persons who were harmed as a result of the crimes for which the defendant will be resentenced. The court concludes that allowing each victim to speak at the defendant's resentencing hearing could unduly prolong and complicate the resentencing of the defendant. Moreover, if a large number of victims intend to attend the hearing, it will be necessary for the court to make arrangements for adequate seating. ...

All persons who believe that they are victims of crimes committed by Mr. Skilling shall notify the court by May 29, 2009, if they wish to be heard at the resentencing hearing, and will briefly explain why they are a crime victim and summarize what they wish to say at the hearing. ... If it appears that multiple victims wish to make the same points, the court may limit the number of victims who speak in order not to unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing hearing.

[JURIST] The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] on Friday passed a resolution condemning Myanmar for human rights violations [press release] and calling on the military junta to desist from politically motivated arrests and release nearly 2,100 political prisoners, which include Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. The resolution was condemned by countries in Asia and Russia as ineffective and unnecessary due to improved conditions for human rights. Under the resolution, the council reappointed Special Rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana for one year to continue monitoring the human rights situation in the country.

Last week, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] said [press release and opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi violates Myanmar's 1975 State Protection Law [text] and pressed for her immediate release. In February, the military government of Myanmar granted amnesty to 23 political detainees and more than 6,300 other prisoners, said Thailand-based human rights group Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) [advocacy website]. These grants were in response to increasing international pressure on the military junta to end its persecution of political dissidents. In January, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] sent an open letter [text, PDF; JURIST report] to the government, urging it to cease targeting its Rohingya Muslim minority [BBC profile]. In December, the UN General Assembly [official website] adopted a resolution [press release; JURIST report] denouncing the nation's alleged human rights violations. In June, the UNHRC criticized the government of Myanmar [JURIST report] for its continued human rights abuses and refusal to cooperate with humanitarian groups.

[JURIST] Russian trials decided by juries are currently restricted, creating hopeless situations for those accused of crimes who choose not to plead guilty, according to former oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive] on Friday. In a statement [text] released on his defense website, Khodorkovsky, who is currently on trial for embezzlement, expressed his hope that this, his second trial, will turn out completely different from his first, writing:

Today one who does not plead guilty, unless his case is tried by a jury court, is guaranteed to make his situation significantly worse because:

- He will get a guilty verdict
- His jail term will be extended, AND
- There will be no hope for early release.

I believe that people ready for such a sacrifice for the sake of the truth, deserve public attention.

[JURIST] A Mexican appeals court on Thursday affirmed a lower court ruling that absolved former president Luis Echeverria [TrialWatch backgrounder; JURIST news archive] of any criminal responsibility for the 1968 killings of student protesters [GWU backgrounder] in Mexico City's Tlatelolco Plaza. The Fifth Criminal Collegiate Court upheld the Third United Criminal Tribunal's July 2007 finding [JURIST report] that the act constituted genocide but that the prosecution had presented no evidence [Universal report, in Spanish] linking Echeverria to the crime. Echeverria, who has been under house arrest since 2006, was released [Jornada, report, in Spanish] Thursday after the ruling.

In December 2006, a court report accused Echeverria of directly ordering [JURIST report] government authorities to repress the student protest, during which at least 25 but as many as 350 students were killed. Echeverria is also accused [JURIST report] of involvement in the murders and disappearances of more than 500 leftist dissidents during a period of time in the 1960s and 1970s called Mexico's "dirty war" [National Security Archive backgrounder], but no charges have been brought.

[JURIST] Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko [personal website] called for constitutional changes to provide more separation between parliamentary and presidential powers during a Thursday interview [report] with Reuters. Tymoshenko said that she believed that the presidency should retain certain powers, but that parliament should be given clear ways to check those powers. She said that by amending the country's constitution [text, in Ukrainian] to clarify the different roles, the government would be better able to address the country's problems, which include strong inflation and high unemployment. The Ukraine government has been criticized [Kyiv Post report] for being ineffective because of a power-struggle [JURIST report] between the branches.

In October, Tymoshenko withdrew a lawsuit [JURIST report] she had brought against Ukraine President Victor Yushchenko [official website; JURIST news archive] after he suspended a plan [press release; AFP report] to hold early elections following the collapse [press release] of the country's coalition government. Before suspending the plan, Yushchenko had issued a decree [decree 922/2008 text, in Ukrainian; JURIST report] abolishing a Kiev court after it tried to block [JURIST report] his order dissolving parliament. Ukraine's leadership is divided in the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution [Foreign Affairs backgrounder] that brought Yushchenko to power as president.

[JURIST] The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) [official website] on Thursday said that it has focused on the effects of counter-terrorism efforts and global warming on human rights, as well as effective conflict resolution and the support of international institutions charged with protecting the rights in its Annual Report on Human Rights [text, PDF]. Introducing the report, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband [official profile] said the office had made an effort to convey objectively [statement text] both its successes and challenges in advancing human rights around the world:

The British people’s commitment to human rights is born from a sense of our history, of rights forged out of shared struggles, and on the belief that free societies offer the best prospects for long term stability and growth. Economic freedom is the best way to empower individuals to fight poverty and improve their own standard of living. Political freedom – and in particular effective democracy–is the best guarantee against political corruption and mismanagement. And as Kofi Annan said, “Humanity will not enjoy security without development, it will not enjoy development without security, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.”

The Human Rights report is a clear and comprehensive survey of our own efforts; an honest account of the successes, the setbacks and the dilemmas.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that a South Carolina law [SC Code §§ 23-3-600 et seq. text] requiring convicted first degree sex offenders to submit to a DNA test and pay $250 in processing fees prior to their release does not violate the ex post facto clause [text] of the Constitution. Anthony Eubanks, convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in April 1995, brought the action against the South Carolina Department of corrections, challenging the constitutionality of the provisions, which took effect in July 1995. In a narrowly tailored ruling, a three-judge panel upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment against Eubanks, holding that the state DNA Identification Act did not violate the ex post facto clause because DNA gathering was a regulatory, not punitive function. The court also held that the $250 fee was a relatively small sum suggesting that it "was not intended to have a significant retributive or deterrent" function. The court was more troubled by a provision that allowed South Carolina to garnish prisoners' wages to pay the $250 fee but avoided ruling on the issue as the appellant had not brought a due process claim. Finally, the court found that the statutory requirement that the prisoner must pay the $250 fee before he is paroled or released is unenforceable against Eubanks, as this provision is severable from the rest of the statute.

This case is the third instance that a court has held that the South Carolina DNA statute does not violate the ex post facto clause. Two South Carolina Court of Appeals rulings previously held that the law was constitutional, including one case decided [opinion] in June. Federal DNA collection laws have also withstood recent constitutional challenges. In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld [JURIST report] an amendment to the DNA Backlog Elimination Act [JURIST report] that required all felons in federal prison to submit DNA to a national database available to police departments throughout the country. In 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of an FBI DNA database, and the New Jersey Court of Appeals upheld a state DNA database for convicted criminals [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] voted 285-140 [roll call vote] Wednesday to approve the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 [HR 146 materials], a collection of more than 160 bills aimed at preserving federal land as wilderness areas, limiting gas and oil development, establishing the National Landscape Conservation System, and various water protection efforts. Among other initiatives, the measure would designate 2 million acres [map, PDF] of federal land as protected wilderness areas, significantly adding to the National Wilderness Preservation System [website]. A spokesman for Campaign for America's Wilderness [advocacy group] applauded the legislation [press release] as being "crafted to both protect our nation's public lands and help sustain local economies." The Wilderness Society [advocacy website] expressed their approval [press release] of the establishment of The National Landscape Conservation System, touting it as the first new land conservation system in a decade. Friends of the Clearwater [advocacy group] have spoken out against [text] a previous version of the legislation, criticizing its public land exchange provisions and constrains on land use as being against the public interest. The measure, which was approved by the US Senate last week, now awaits approval from President Barack Obama [official profile], who is expected to sign [NYT report].

The legislation would affect some of the same land at the center of the controversy surrounding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [Forest Service backgrounder], implemented by former president Bill Clinton in 2001 and replaced [JURIST report] in 2005 by the Bush administration with a rule allowing governors to request that regulations on the management of roadless areas be developed to meet the needs of individual states. The Clinton-era rule would have prohibited mining, logging, and road construction in the forests of 38 states and Puerto Rico, totaling more than 58 million acres of land. In December, a federal judge ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that her 2006 decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] invalidating the Bush administration rule [text] applies only to 10 western states. In August, another federal judge ruled [opinion, PDF] that the Clinton-era rule was invalid, and the Bush administration had asked that the two conflicting decisions be reconciled. Cases are currently pending in federal courts in San Francisco and Denver, and the Obama administration could also make changes to the rule.

[JURIST] The Tokyo District Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit [Japan Times report] filed by 172 teachers and school personnel who were punished for refusing to sing the national anthem and salute the flag at school events. The school staff argued that the punishments, ranging from suspensions and salary reductions to "special retraining" [NYT report], violated their freedom of thought guaranteed under the Japanese constitution [text]. The District Court has issued mixed rulings since new rules [Japan Times report] were issued altering how the flag is to be flown and how the national anthem, "Kimigayo," is to be sung, as well as mandating punishment for violations of the rules, with a number of those rulings currently under review by the Tokyo High Court.

The controversial statute is just one of many examples of a resurgence of Japanese nationalism and desire for Japan to have a greater presence on the world stage. Over the past decade, Japan has made numerous attempts to amend its "pacifist" constitution [JURIST news archive], particularly Article 9, which includes, "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." In January, Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada authorized the Japanese navy to engage pirates [JURIST report] off of the coast of Somalia, in possible violation of the constitution. In May 2008, Japanese lawmakers passed a bill [JURIST report] authorizing the use of the country's space program for defense purposes. In November 2007, The Sapporo District Court rejected a claim [JURIST report] that the presence of Japanese troops in Iraq violated the constitution, and in January of that year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe elevated the Defense Agency [speech text] to the Ministry of Defense, a cabinet-level Ministry with an increased budget.