[JURIST] The Constitutional Tribunal of Portugal [official website, in Portuguese] ruled [press release, in Portuguese] 3-2 Friday that same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] is not a right guaranteed by the Portuguese Constitution [text], denying an appeal by a lesbian couple claiming sexual orientation discrimination. For the tribunal, the issue was not whether the constitution allows a framework for same=sex marriage, but rather whether the constitution requires the recognition of unions between members of the same sex as marriages. The couple argued that the constitution should protect their right to wed under the concept of protection from discrimination. Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao are the first to challenge Portuguese laws regarding same-sex marriage, and they regard the split decision as a signal that social attitudes in the country are changing. They intend to pursue [Correio da Manha report, in Portuguese] the issue further in the European Court of Human Rights [official website]. Portuguese media identify [Diario Economico report, in Portuguese] the issue as one that will be raised in the upcoming September legislative elections by leftist parties.

In October, the Portuguese Assembly of the Republic [official website, in Portuguese] voted overwhelmingly against [JURIST report] two opposition proposals to legalize same-sex marriage. In Europe, the countries of Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden recognize [Pew Forum report] same-sex marriages. Worldwide, gay rights and the legal status of same-sex relationships are constantly evolving. Canada as well as some states in the US [Pew Forum report] also allow same-sex marriage.

[JURIST] A control order [JURIST news archive] against a suspected terrorist known as AN was overturned [judgment text] Friday by the UK High Court. In overturning the control order, the high court relied on a June decision [judgment, PDF; JURIST report] from a panel of nine Law Lords [official website] requiring the government to let detainees and subjects of control orders know generally what charges they face so that they can mount a defense. Home Secretary Alan Johnson [official profile] has announced plans [BBC report] to draft a new control order against AN. Civil rights group Liberty [advocacy website] condemned the new control order [press release] as a circumvention of the law, claiming, "A handful of officials and specially-vetted lawyers have outlasted dozens of Ministers and built their careers on punishment without trial - leaving Britain less safe and less free"

Control orders allow the British government to conduct surveillance and impose house arrest on suspects where there does not exist enough evidence to prosecute. The orders can also be used to forbid the use of mobile phones and the Internet. In February, a UK counter-terrorism official said that some suspects living under control orders have managed to maintain contact [JURIST report] with terrorist organizations. Control orders were first introduced [JURIST report] by the government of former prime minister Tony Blair in 2005 and, apart from being politically controversial, have already run into problems in the courts [JURIST report]. The UK Law Lords ruled [JURIST report] in a series of decisions in October that the government can continue to impose control orders on terror suspects in lieu of detention, but said that some elements of the orders issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 violate human rights.

[JURIST] The Iraqi government [official website, in Arabic] announced on Friday the drafting of a law that proposes a framework to safeguard Iraqi journalists. The proposed law [AFP report] would offer greater protection to staff journalists than to freelancers and would criminalize attacks against a journalist on the job. The bill details compensation that journalists would receive for injuries sustained on duty and that journalists' families would be entitled to if the journalist were killed on the job. The proposed bill addresses usage of anonymous sources and seeks to protect journalists from being forced to publish on subjects or opinions against their will. Despite the proposed rights and protections, the Iraqi-based Journalistic Freedoms Observatory [advocacy website, in Arabic] has decried the proposed law [Reuters report] as a threat that could erode journalists' freedom from governmental interference in regards to revealing sources or restricting material published that may benefit an undefined enemy of the state.

Reporters Without Borders [advocacy website] has documented [RWB report] the dangers journalists have faced in Iraq, including the death of "225 journalists and media assistants since the start of the start of the fighting ... in March 2003." The Committee to Protect Journalists [advocacy website] has also documented [statistical profile] those dangers, and has determined that the most prevalent cause of death is murder, followed by crossfire or other acts of war. Iraq has been criticized in the past for restrictive media policies. Iraqi military spokesperson Major General Qassim Atta in April sought the closure [JURIST report] of the Bagdad offices of newspaper Al-Hayat and television network Al-Sharquiya [media websites, in Arabic] after the two media outlets allegedly misquoted him in a story.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that former Qwest Communications [corporate website] CEO Joseph Nacchio [JURIST news archive] was incorrectly sentenced to six years in prison due to flawed methodology. In sentencing Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading [JURIST report], the trial court ruled that Nacchio had made approximately $28 million in net profits by selling stock based on information not available to the public. The district court imposed the six-year sentence based on federal sentencing guidelines [USSG § 2F1.1]. The appellate court found, however, that by ignoring the normal appreciation in the value of the stocks, Nacchio's illegal gains were overstated. The court held that "[b]ecause mere trading does not constitute criminal insider trading, it logically follows that any gain made from lawful trading should not be considered as gain used to increase a prison sentence." The appellate court did not specify how to calculate the illegal gain, only ruling that on remand, "the district court should focus on arriving at a figure that more closely approximates Mr. Nacchio's gain resulting from the offense of insider trading." (emphasis in original.) The appellate court also found that the district court incorrectly determined the amount of money Nacchio should forfeit and remanded that issue as well.

In April, Nacchio reported to the minimum security prison camp [JURIST report] at FCI Schuylkill [official website], marking an end to nearly two years of appellate proceedings following his April 2007 conviction for illegally selling $52 million of Qwest stock in 2001. Nacchio's conviction was overturned [JURIST report] by a Tenth Circuit panel in March 2008 due to improperly excluded expert testimony, but was reinstated [opinion, PDF] in a February 2009 en banc rehearing requested [JURIST report] by the prosecution. Federal prosecutors indicted Nacchio in December 2005 on 42 counts of insider trading [JURIST report]. He and other former Qwest executives still face civil fraud charges [JURIST report] brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission [official website] on allegations that Qwest improperly reported approximately $3 billion in revenue that eased its 2000 merger with US West.