[JURIST] The Supreme Court of India [official website] on Thursday accepted a petition challenging a lower court ruling declaring [JURIST report] India's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Sushil Kumar Kaushal asked the Court to set aside a ruling [judgment, PDF] by the Delhi High Court [official website], which found that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code [text, PDF], outlawing "carnal conduct against the order of nature," runs counter to Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution [text, PDF]. In his petition, Kaushal argued that decriminalizing homosexual conduct will increase the spread of HIV, and will lead to calls to legalize beastiality. Chief Justice of India Konakuppakatil Balakrishnan [official profile] asked the Indian government and the Naz Foundation [advocacy website], the plaintiff in the original case, to appear during a scheduled July 20 hearing. The Delhi court's ruling is binding only in the Union Territory of Delhi [official website], while the Supreme Court's ruling would be binding nationwide.

The criminalization of homosexuality has been a divisive issue around the world. In April, an appeals court in Senegal ordered the release [JURIST report] of nine members of AIDS awareness group AIDES Senegal who had been convicted of sodomy and sentenced to eight years in prison. In November, the parliament of Burundi voted to criminalize homosexuality, a move condemned [JURIST reports] by human rights groups. In December, the UN General Assembly [official website] was divided [press release; JURIST report] over the issue as 66 nations signed a statement calling for decriminalization, and nearly 60 nations signed an opposing statement.

[JURIST] Bangladesh should improve their war crimes laws [letter text] to bring justice to victims of the 1971 War of Independence [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] from Pakistan, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina [BBC profile] Wednesday. The rights group sent a letter to Hasina applauding the government's commitment in setting up tribunals to prosecute war criminals and asked for improvements to be made to the International Crimes Act of 1973 [text, PDF]. HRW requested that the trials be conducted by civilian judges, that the rights of the accused are respected, that there is proper protection for witnesses and victims who testify, that the law is consistent with international standards, and that the death penalty be excluded. Law Minister Shafique Ahmed has already presented changes [AFP report] to the law to make it "fair and neutral," including provisions to allow convicted offenders to appeal. HRW Asia director Brad Adams said that the law needs to be comprehensive enough to prevent the accused from challenging the entire process. The letter addressed the changes in international human rights since the 1973 passage of the Bangladesh law:

While the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act may have been largely based on international standards at the time of its drafting, international criminal law has evolved significantly since, including with the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 and its coming into force after ratification by 60 states in 2002. The Rome statute and the ICC's corresponding jurisprudence reflect international norms, which Bangladesh, as a signatory to the Rome statute, should follow.

[JURIST] A collection of advocacy groups filed suit Thursday against New Mexico and Indiana [complaints, PDF] alleging that the states have failed to comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) [text] by not providing voter registration cards at public assistance agencies. Commonly known as the "Motor Voter Act," NVRA requires that states make voter registration materials available in "all offices in the State that provide public assistance," or are "primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities." Advocacy groups Project Vote, Demos, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law [advocacy websites] sought injunctive relief from federal courts, alleging that the states have consistently failed to provide registration materials at food stamp, Medicaid, and other public assistance offices. Brenda Wright [official profile], director of Demos' Democracy Program, said that the non-compliance has reduced low-income voter registrations [Demos report, PDF] by 91 percent in New Mexico and 97 percent in Indiana, compared to the first years of the NVRA.

Last month, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri [official website] approved a settlement [Lawyer's Committee press release] between the coalition and the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) [official website] allowing recovery of $450,000 in legal costs. The court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2008, requiring DSS to provide voter registration and assistance to their clients. The Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has also brought several cases [case materials] seeking enforcement of the NVRA. In 2007, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division [official website] announced [JURIST report] that they would be increasing NVRA enforcement efforts.

[JURIST] Ethiopian lawmakers passed a controversial new anti-terrorism Tuesday law that rights groups claim will negatively affect human rights in the country. Ethiopian authorities responded [VOA report] Wednesday to a recent Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] report [text], which expressed concern that the law could "punish political speech and peaceful protest as terrorist acts and encourage unfair trials." HRW argued that the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation violates due process and freedoms of speech and assembly since the law is ambiguous and could be construed to suppress political opposition. Ethiopia maintained that the legislation is necessary to address threats from internal rebel groups and denied that it will be used to quash political dissent. Lawmakers passed the bill [AFP report] Tuesday without making the changes urged by HRW. Ethiopian Communications Minister Bereket Simon maintained that the law is constitutionally permissible and in compliance with international law by arguing that the country has a right to defend itself against rebels. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy group] argued that, while Ethiopia faces legitimate security concerns, anti-terrorism laws must be enacted [AI report] in accordance with international rights standards. The law is supported by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi [BBC profile].

Human rights in Ethiopia have been intensely scrutinized by the international community. The Ethiopian National Priorities Consultative Process [advocacy website] met in Chicago last week to agree on a resolution [text, PDF] that expresses concern over civil rights. The group was troubled by proclamations being passed by the ruling regime, calling anti-terrorism laws and others "draconian" and repressive. In January, the Ethiopian Parliament adopted legislation [JURIST report] to prevent certain foreign charities from being involved in areas that the government believes are internal affairs including human rights and equality. In June, HRW released a report attacking Ethiopian human rights practices in the Ogaden region [JURIST report]. In October 2007, the US House of Representatives passed the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 [JURIST commentary], aimed in part at encouraging the improvement of the human rights situation in Ethiopia. The bill is currently before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In July 2007, HRW accused Ethiopian troops of violating international humanitarian law [JURIST report] by burning homes and forcibly relocating civilians in Ogaden.

[JURIST] The French Senate [official website, in French] on Wednesday approved [vote, in French] a new version [text, in French] of a controversial Internet piracy law after portions of it were rejected [decision, in French; JURIST report] last month by France's Constitutional Council [official website]. The original law subjected violators of copyright laws to suspension of Internet access at the discretion of a newly-created administrative authority bestowed with judicial power. The new law leaves the discretion to suspend services to a judge, since the Constitutional Council ruled that the power to restrict the fundamental right of accessing the Internet should not be entrusted to an administrative authority. The determination to suspend access will be made on an infringer's third violation, after previously receiving two warnings. Senate Socialists voted against the measure [text, in French] after Senator Bodin Yannick [official profile, in French] called it fragile, inefficient, and ambiguous. Senate Socialist Marie-Christine Blandin [official profile, in French] expressed concern over the fact that people are responsible under the law for those illegally using their internet connections, reasoning that it jeopardizes the presumption of innocence. Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Education, and Communication Jacques Legendre [official profile, in French] maintained that the law was important to protect culture and its creators. The measure, which was approved by a 189-142 vote, must now go before the lower house of parliament.

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 by proposing an escalating series of responses for users that are caught. The original version of the law was challenged [JURIST report] by the Socialist party on the grounds that it failed to find a balance between the rights of Internet users and those of copyright holders. In May, the original bill was approved by the National Assembly after initially defeating [JURIST reports] it in April. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [organization website], representing the worldwide recording industry, has welcomed the legislation [press release], although 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 [France 24 report].

[JURIST] A Kosovo court on Wednesday began trial of three former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) members accused of committing war crimes during the 1998-1999 Balkan ethnic conflicts [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The trial, being held in the Kosovo's District Court of Prishtina, involves a mixed team made up of local and European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) [official website] authorities. Former KLA commander and current parliamentary deputy Rrustem Mustafa [official website] along with two KLA soldiers, Latif Gashi and Nazif Mehmeti, are accused of torturing five ethnic Albanians detained near the town of Podujevo. Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaci [official website], also a former KLA member, commented [AFP report] that the government is confident that the men will be acquitted. In 2003, the three were convicted of murder based on the same events, but the ruling was overturned [B92 report] by the Kosovo Supreme Court in 2005.

EULEX reached [JURIST report] its first guilty verdict in March, after formally beginning operations [JURIST report] last December. Also in March, the trial of two Serbian defendants was blocked [JURIST report] by hundreds of Serbian protesters and has been postponed indefinitely. Kosovo officially declared its independence from Serbia [JURIST report] in February 2008, and its new constitution [text] went into effect [JURIST report] that June. Kosovo's status as an independent nation has been recognized by over 60 countries, but Serbia has officially condemned the declaration [text, JURIST report] as illegal, citing UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) [text]. China and Russia, both members of the UN Security Council, support Serbia's position on Kosovo.

[JURIST] A commission created by the French National Assembly [official websites, in French] began hearings Wednesday to consider whether to enact laws banning the wearing of burqas [JURIST news archive] or other "full veils." The commission heard testimony from anthropologist Dounia Bouzar [video, in French; TIME profile] who suggested that a broad ban on covering one's face to conceal identity is preferable to a law that singles out Muslims. Bouzar said that the recent popularity of the burqa amongst French Muslims was due to religious "gurus" who have misconstrued the teachings of Islam. The commission also heard from University of Nice [academic website, in French] philosopher Abdennour Bidar [video, in French], who urged the commission to find a way to prevent the spread of the practice, though he was unsure whether this goal is best accomplished through legislation.

The commission was established [JURIST report] last month, after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French; JURIST news archive] strongly criticized the practice [transcript, PDF, in French], saying that "the burqa is not welcome in France." The controversy between the Muslim community and the French government over the burqa has existed for several years. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] unanimously ruled [JURIST report] that there was no human rights violation when a French school expelled two students for refusing to remove their headscarves. Last July, a Muslim woman's citizenship application was denied [JURIST report] because she failed to assimilate to French culture and she practiced a type of Islam found incompatible with French values. In 2004, France passed a law [JURIST report] banning students from conspicuous religious items, including Muslim headscarves, in schools.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday upheld [opinion, PDF] the state of Washington's mandates prohibiting patient discrimination and requiring that pharmacies deliver lawfully-prescribed, approved medications. Under the rules, pharmacists are not required [WAC § 246-863-095 text] to dispense medication if they personally object to it, but will be subjected to professional discipline for destroying or refusing to return an unfilled lawful prescription, violating a patient's privacy, or discriminating against or harassing a patient. Pharmacies will be required [WAC § 246-869-010 text] to deliver lawfully prescribed medications or devices and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] in a timely manner. A pharmacist's personal objections to dispensing a particular drug may be "accommodated" in any way that the pharmacy decides is suitable, excluding referring the patient to another pharmacy. The ruling reverses a district court decision [JURIST report] that the rules violated pharmacies' and pharmacists' First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] rights, asserting that the lower court incorrectly applied a heightened level of scrutiny to the laws and that the injunction issued was overbroad:

Because the rules are neutral and generally applicable, the district court should have subjected the rules to the rational basis standard of review. The district court instead introduced a heightened scrutiny to a neutral law of general applicability, contrary to the rule of Smith and Lukumi. When a law is neutral and generally applicable, the rational basis test applies. ... Under rational basis review, the rules will be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. ... [I]t appears that the new rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizen-patients receive lawfully prescribed medications without delay.

[JURIST] People arrested in Iran after last month's disputed presidential election [JURIST news archive] have been beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with torture in an effort to force false confessions, according to a report [text] released Wednesday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. HRW alleges that Iranian authorities are attempting to support accusations that the post-election civil unrest was orchestrated by Western powers by having detainees sign blank statements or give videotaped confession under duress. The report points to the cases of Amir Hossein Mahdavi, editor of the reformist newspaper Andishe No, and Maziar Bahari, a Newsweek [media websites] correspondent, as emblematic of the situation in Iran. Both were arrested, detained, and subsequently confessed to their involvement in foreign-directed plots on state television, though supporters of both men have defended their innocence. Among the first-hand accounts gathered for the report is that of a 17-year-old who was beaten, sleep deprived, and given a blank confession to sign during four days in detention, and another describing the release of prisoners with "bruised faces and hands" from Tehran's Revolutionary Court. An eyewitness said that a list of people who were still detained was posted outside the court, suggesting that "their families should come back in a couple of weeks." HRW urged authorities to allow prisoners "to communicate with counsel of his own choosing" and "not to be compelled to ... confess guilt" in accordance with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [text], to which Iran is a party. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [official profile; BBC profile] on Monday warned Western nations [BBC report] to stay out of the country's internal affairs, claiming that relations with meddling countries would suffer

Iran has been experiencing turmoil in Tehran and elsewhere since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was declared the winner the election in June. Last week, a conservative paper called for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi [IranTracker profile; JURIST news archive] and former president Mohammad Khatami to be tried for treason [JURIST report] for their involvement in post-election protests. Also last week, the Iranian government barred the publication [press release, in Persian; JURIST report] of a newspaper linked to candidate Mehdi Karroubi, attempting to quash political dissidence. The country's Guardian Council of the Constitution [official website, in Persian] recently certified the contested results [press release, in Persian; JURIST report], officially sanctioning the re-election of Ahmadinejad. Authorities stated that those arrested would be dealt with [Reuters report] by the court system. Human rights groups have viewed the arrests as political repression [JURIST report], saying that Iranian forces are using the protests to "engage in what appears to be a major purge of reform-oriented individuals."

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official profile] announced Tuesday his intent to nominate [press release] war crimes prosecutor Stephen Rapp [official profile] as Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues. In this position, Rapp will head the Office of War Crimes Issues at the US Department of State [official website], coordinating US support for war crimes prosecutions in international and domestic tribunals. Rapp will advise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile] and formulate government policy responses to war crimes. The office works with foreign governments, courts, and non-government organizations to deal with the accountability of such crimes in areas including the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and other regions that have experienced genocide and crimes against humanity. He will replace Clint Wilson [official profile], who has served in the post since June 2006.

Rapp currently serves as Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone [official website] and has led prosecutions against alleged perpetrators of war crimes during the civil war in Sierra Leone, including former Liberian president Charles Taylor [case materials; JURIST news archive]. In February, Rapp told the media that the court was considering releasing Taylor due to a lack of funds, but the trial continued, and prosecutors warned this week that the trial could last up to four years [JURIST reports]. Rapp had previously expressed concerns regarding court funding, prompting Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] to urge donors to contribute [JURIST report] to the court for the purposes of finishing Taylor's trial. Prior to this role, Rapp was chief of prosecutions for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website], serving as a senior trial attorney for a team that convicted mass media leaders for incitement to commit genocide. Rapp has also served as a US attorney for the Northern District of Iowa [official website], a staff director for a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, a member of the Iowa legislature, and as a private attorney.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] said Wednesday that it is still seeking the arrest [press release] of Ugandan rebel leader and war crimes suspect Joseph Kony [BBC profile] and his deputies, four years after warrants for the men were issued by the court. Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) [BBC backgrounder], is wanted [warrant, PDF; case materials] by the ICC on 33 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, rape, sexual enslavement, and conscription of children. The court said that it "remains hopeful" that it will still apprehend the men with the help of the DR Congo, Ugandan, and Sudanese governments and through efforts [JURIST reports] by the UN Mission to the DR Congo [official website]. Kony has insisted that he his not guilty [JURIST report] of the atrocities attributed to him, describing himself as a "freedom fighter" rather than a criminal.

Warrants for the men were made public [JURIST report] in October 2005, after being the first to be issued by the court in July of that year. The ICC has repeatedly called for the arrest of the men, and has not conceded to Ugandan requests that the charges be dropped [JURIST reports] as part of a peace deal with the LRA. In May 2008, Uganda created the High Court of Uganda [JURIST report] to try LRA rebels, but the ICC warrants remain in effect [JURIST report].

[JURIST] John Harris, former chief of staff to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich [JURIST news archive], pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [court website]. The guilty plea is the first in the high-profile case [DOJ press release, PDF] concerning the suspected efforts of Blagojevich to sell President Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. As part of the agreement, Harris will testify [Reuters report] against the five remaining defendants, including Blagojevich, whose trial will begin in June 2010 [JURIST report]. In exchange for his plea and testimony, Harris will face no more than 35 months in prison [AP report].

In April, Blagojevich pleaded not guilty to 16 felony counts [JURIST reports], including wire fraud, attempted extortion, racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, and making false statements. In January, the Illinois State Senate voted unanimously [JURIST report] to convict Blagojevich of abuse of power and remove him from office. Blagojevich is the first Illinois governor to be impeached and removed from office. Blagojevich and Harris were initially arrested [JURIST report] in December.