[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [official website] on Friday affirmed [opinion, PDF] a district court ruling [JURIST report] that tobacco manufacturers conducted a scheme to deceive American consumers as to the health effects of their products through a pattern of mail and wire fraud. The US brought the initial action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) [18 USC § 1961–1968] which criminalizes the conduction or participation in the affairs of an enterprise that affects interstate or foreign commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity. The affirmed ruling will require tobacco manufacturers to issue public statements to correct messages it had put out which denied the health hazards of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking, the dangers of second-hand smoke and the manufacturers' manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery. The companies will also be required to cease using any express or implied health terminology such as "light" or "low tar." While the appellate court affirmed many of the district court's remedial injunctions, they rejected a remedy that would require tobacco manufacturers to effectively force retailers to display large freestanding displays to convey the corrective messages, reasoning that the district court did not consider the rights of innocent persons as required [18 USC § 1964] by RICO. The court refused to order the manufacturers to forfeit profits gained as a result of past deception.

In April, the US House of Representatives [official website] passed [JURIST report] the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [HR 1256 text] which would give the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] the authority to regulate the market for tobacco products. In March, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari [JURIST report] in Philip Morris USA v. Williams [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report]. In November, Saudi Arabia renewed a $34 billion suit against tobacco companies [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Rwandan Hutu Desire Munyaneza [Trial Watch profile] was convicted [judgment, DOC] by the Superior Court of Quebec [official website] Friday on seven counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes under Canada's new Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act [text, PDF]. Munyaneza is the first person to have been charged under the act, which Canada ratified in 2000 in order to fulfill its obligations to the International Criminal Court [ICC] (official website). The court's decision heavily emphasized the nation's obligation as a signatory to the Rome Statute [text, PDF] of the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity when they would otherwise go unprosecuted. The decision also focused heavily on the macabre nature of the crimes committed:

Desire Munyaneza specifically intended to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group in Butare and in the surrounding communes. To that end, he intentionally killed Tutsi, seriously wounded others, caused them serious physical and mental harm, sexually assaulted many Tutsi women and generally treated Tutsi inhumanely and degradingly.

[JURIST] The South Korean Supreme Court [official website, in Korean] on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling allowing a brain-damaged patient the right to die [JURIST news archive]. The patient, a 76-year old woman on life-support at a Yonsei University medical center [hospital website], is brain-dead [Hankyora report] and unable to survive without the use of a respirator. Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon reasoned that, since revival of the patient is impossible and death is imminent without a respirator, extending life-support could impose on the dignity of her life. The judge held that, for future cases, doctors should make efforts to confirm patients' wishes to die with dignity and that such determinations can be deduced from an analysis of different factors. Korean Minister of Health Jeon Jae-hee [official profile] spoke out against the ruling, claiming that legalization of the right to die should be passed as a law complete with public hearings. Medical professionals have supported the ruling but also expressed a desire to see it backed up by legislation.

The Supreme Court appeal was brought by the Yonsei Severance Hospital after an appellate court in February ruled [JURIST report] in favor of the patient's family. Several courts and governments have recently approached the legal issues surrounding the removal of life support, food and treatment from persons in a persistent vegetative state. Also in February, Italian lawmakers indicated that they would proceed with a vote on right-to-die legislation despite the death of comatose patient Eluana Englaro [JURIST reports] after the removal of her feeding tube. In November, the Mexican Senate approved a law [JURIST report] that would allow terminally ill patients to refuse medical treatment. In 2005, the Terri Schiavo case [JURIST report] highlighted similar issues in the US.

[JURIST] Former US soldier Steven Green [JURIST news archive] was sentenced Thursday to life in prison for the rape and murder of an Iraqi teenage girl [JURIST news archive] and the murder of her family in Mahmudiya. A federal jury in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky [official website], which convicted [JURIST report] Green earlier this month, was instructed [proposed jury instructions, PDF] to decide "whether justice requires imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment without any possibility of release." The jurors deliberated [AP report] over the sentencing for two days and could not reach a unanimous decision. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty [JURIST report], but Green's defense maintained that he did not deserve capital punishment due to the highly stressful combat situation he was in and a lack of sufficient leadership. The jury had to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors [18 USC § 3592] in contemplation of the death penalty.

Green faced a civilian jury due to being discharged for a psychiatric disorder before the charges were brought. He was one of six soldiers [JURIST report] charged with involvement in the rape and murders. Three other soldiers pleaded guilty in court-martial proceedings and a fourth was convicted. Spc. James P. Barker and Sgt. Paul E. Cortez were sentenced to 90 and 100 years respectively, while Pfc. Bryan L. Howard [JURIST reports], who stayed at the checkpoint and had prior knowledge of the plans, was sentenced to 27 months in jail. The fourth, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman [JURIST report], was convicted by a military jury and sentenced to 110 years. Prosecutors dropped charges of dereliction of duty against the sixth member, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, who was other than honorably discharged.

[JURIST] Spanish National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz Gomez [JURIST news archive] reinstated charges [indictment, PDF, in Spanish] Thursday against three US soldiers for their involvement in the death of Spanish cameraman Jose Couso [advocacy website, in Spanish], which occurred when the soldiers opened fire on a Baghdad hotel frequented by Western journalists in 2003, allegedly without provocation. The homicide charges initially filed against Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp [Trial Watch profiles] were dropped in 2007 due to a lack of evidence sufficient to prove that shots taken by the soldiers were unprovoked. According to Gomez, the testimony of three journalists provided evidence sufficient to support the initial homicide allegations. Gomez emphasized the journalists' assertion that the morning on which the attack occurred had been relatively calm and that prior to the US soldiers' attack on the hotel, there had been 45 minutes without any such disturbances. Testimony detailing the morning's calmness, evidenced by the fact that Couso was standing at the hotel's window when he was killed, stands in direct contrast to the US soldiers' previously claimed justification of self defense.

Gomez initiated investigations [JURIST report] into the incident in June 2005. In October of that year, he ordered [text, in Spanish; JURIST report] the soldiers' arrest. The order was reversed by a panel of judges for the National Court in 2006. This reversal was then overturned by Spain's Supreme Court, resulting in arrest warrants being reissued [JURIST report] in January 2007. The soldiers were indicted [JURIST report] in April of that year, but charges were soon dropped due to a lack of evidence.

[JURIST] The Bolivian Senate [official website, in Spanish] announced Thursday that an impeachment trial for Chief Justice Dr. Eddy Walter Fernandez Gutierrez [official profile, in Spanish] of the Bolivian Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] will be held on June 3. The Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Spanish], Bolivia's lower congressional house, impeached Fernandez and suspended his title earlier this month after convicting him on the charge of "retardation of justice" [Los Tiempos report, in Spanish]. Fernandez denounced his impeachment as a politically motivated endeavor to clear room in the Supreme Court for a justice more likely to represent the interests of Bolivian president and leader of the Socialist Movement (MAS) [party website, in Spanish] party Evo Morales [official profile, in Spanish; JURIST news archive].

The "retardation of justice" charge was attributed to public discontent [Los Tiempos report, in Spanish] over Fernandez's refusal to hear a case against former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada [Trial Watch profile] arising from the "Black October" [AI Backgrounder] killings of 2003. Five days after Fernandez's title was suspended, the Supreme Court announced their intention to try Lozada [JURIST report]. The riots leading up to the Black October killings occurred when military forces clashed with indigenous farmers, coca growers, students, and unionists who protested Sanchez de Lozada's attempts to open up the country to free trade with the US and to export gas and other natural resources. The protests were led by Morales.

[JURIST] Former US vice president Dick Cheney [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on Thursday defended national security policies [speech transcript] of the Bush administration. Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [organization website], Cheney criticized many of the security policies of President Barack Obama [official profile] and described how the 9/11 terrorist attacks affected subsequent decisions to defend the country. Maintaining that accurate intelligence is necessary to any strategy, Cheney defended the use of force to obtain timely information as being granted by Article II [text] of the US Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force [text]. The former vice president discussed the highly contested enhanced interrogation techniques [JURIST news archive] used on suspected terrorists, stating that such techniques were the only way to obtain information necessary to the safety of the country and that he remains a "strong proponent" of the practice. He maintained that the use of the controversial interrogations "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people." Shifting his focus to the current administration's handling of Bush-era policies, Cheney criticized the recent release of interrogation documents [JURIST report], stating that:

when ... the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

[JURIST] A French Internet piracy law [text, in French; JURIST news archive] has been challenged on constitutional grounds by the opposition Socialist party [party website, in French] in front of the Constitutional Council [official website, in French]. The bill, introduced by cultural minister Christine Albanel and supported by President Nicholas Sarkozy [official websites, in French], is aimed at reducing illegal downloads of protected works and was approved by the French Senate [France 24 report] earlier this month by a 189-14 vote. The bill proposes an escalating series of responses for users that are caught, beginning with two warnings followed by suspension of Internet access. The suspension of services would be at the discretion of the High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet [materials, in French], an administrative authority bestowed with judicial power, which is one of the stipulations contested by the Socialists and others. Internet subscribers could also be held responsible for others using their connections to download pirated materials. The Socialists maintain that the bill fails to find the balance [press release, in French] between the rights of Internet users and those of copyright holders and argue [presentation, PDF, in French] that freedom to access the Internet is a fundamental principle that should be guaranteed for everyone, only to be limited by the courts. The council has one month to issue a ruling on the challenge, filed Tuesday. If the law is found to be constitutional, it could take effect shortly after that.

The controversial bill was defeated [JURIST report] last month by the National Assembly [official website, in French] but was later approved [JURIST report]. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [organization website], representing the worldwide recording industry, has welcomed the legislation [press release], while it has been opposed [press release, in French] by French consumer interest group UFC-Que Choisir [advocacy website, in French] as well as cable and internet providers [French 24 report]. The assembly began considering the bill [JURIST report] in March after it passed through the French senate in October 2008.

[JURIST] Former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] dismissed his defense lawyers Thursday and announced he would not call any witnesses in protest of what he sees as a politically motivated prosecution [Taipei Times report]. Chen, who was indicted [JURIST report] in December, faces possible life in prison on charges of embezzlement, receiving bribes, forgery, and money laundering. Chen and his former lawyers claim that the decision to keep Chen in detention while he awaited trial was politically motivated and they argue that the government violated [China Post report] Chen's human rights by giving him substandard medical attention while detained. Chen has long argued that current Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou [official website; JURIST news archive] is using Chen's trial to distance himself from Chen's anti-China views. The judge assigned Chen a public defender [AFP report], but Chen has said he will not discuss the case with the public defender. Chen will remain in detention for at least two more months.

Chen called the proceedings against him "political persecution" when his trial began [JURIST report] in March. Chen has staged three hunger strikes [JURIST report] in protest of the charges against him, and in January he unsuccessfully appealed [JURIST report] his pretrial detention. In February, Chen's wife, Wu Shu-Chen, pleaded guilty to charges [JURIST reports] of money-laundering and forgery, but denied charges that she embezzled from the presidential state affairs fund. Chen's sister-in-law has also pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to charges that she had forged documents and transferred money to bank accounts upon orders from Chen and Wu. Chen has asserted that he was unaware of Wu's actions. In September 2008, Chen was cleared [JURIST report] of separate defamation charges.