[JURIST] The Russian Supreme Court [official website, in Russian] on Thursday ruled that the case of murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive] should be returned to prosecutors for further investigation. The court overturned [RIA Novosti report] a lower court decision [JURIST report] not to combine the case against Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, Dzhabrail Makhmudov, and Ibragim Makhmudov with an investigation against other suspects, including Rustam Makhmudov, the brother of Dzhabrail and Ibragim, who is thought to be in hiding under an alias. Reporters Without Borders [advocacy website] welcomed the court's decision, saying [press release] it offers "a degree of hope." Also Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld [RIA Novosti report] its decision to annul the acquittal of the three suspects. Their lawyer said he plans an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

The Supreme Court ordered the retrial [JURIST report] of the three suspects in June after prosecutors argued the trial judge made procedural errors. Khadzhikurbanov, Dzhabrail Makhmudov, and Ibragim Makhmudov were acquitted [JURIST report] in February after a jury found that the evidence against the three was not enough [RIA Novosti report] to support convictions. A week later, prosecutors appealed the acquittals [JURIST report]. In November 2008, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office [official website, in Russian] requested a new judge [JURIST report], claiming that Moscow Military District Court judge Yevgeny Zubov had violated procedural rules. Zubov refused to recuse himself [JURIST report] from the trial. Khadzhikurbanov, Dzhabrail Makhmudov, and Ibragim Makhmudov were arrested [JURIST report] in August 2007 in connection with Politkovskaya's 2006 slaying.

[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] made a number of missteps that could have uncovered the fraud committed by Bernard Madoff [JURIST news archive] at an earlier date, according to an inspector general's report [text, PDF] released Wednesday. The report indicated that between 1992 and 2008, six complaints were lodged with the SEC concerning Madoff's hedge fund operation. One of the complaints [text], submitted in 2005 by independent fraud investigator Harry Markopolos, raised doubts as to the level of return seen with Madoff's fund. The inspector general's report concluded:

As the foregoing demonstrates, despite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff's trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had these efforts been made with appropriate follow-up at any time beginning in June of 1992 until December 2008, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme well before Madoff confessed.

[JURIST] The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal [official website] ruled [decision, PDF] Wednesday that Canada's Internet Hate Speech law unconstitutionally violates the right to free expression. The law, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act [text], proscribed individuals or groups from:

communicat[ing] telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[JURIST] Lawyers for alleged al Qaeda media director Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday appealed [brief, PDF] his conviction and life sentence [JURIST reports] for conspiring with al Qaeda, soliciting murder, and providing material support for terrorism. His Pentagon-appointed defense lawyers argued that his constitutional rights were violated because a supposed al Qaeda recruitment film he released is protected speech under the First Amendment. His lawyers argued:

The First Amendment ... bars the prosecution of political argument except in a few narrow circumstances, such as incitement. Here, no reasonable trier of fact could find that State of the Ummah rises to the level of incitement ... The record instead shows that State of the Ummah is exactly what the government contended it was – a political argument that provoked the very kind of debate and dissent that warrants its protection per se under the First Amendment. Additionally, it was incumbent upon the military judge to instruct the members on what speech is and is not criminal. This he did not do and the government exploited this fact to put Mr. al Bahlul's political beliefs on trial.

[JURIST] Chilean judge Manuel Valderrama disclosed on Wednesday a report on the extent and sources of the secret fortune of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] that amounts to $25,978,602 in accounts held outside of Chile, of which $20,199,753 is suspected to to have been embezzled from official funds. The funds were accumulated [Los Tiempos report, in Spanish] over the period from 1973 to 2004, when a Senate sub-committee investigation uncovered the accounts [JURIST report]. On Tuesday, retired general Sergio Moreno Saravia was detained in connection with the embezzlement case on an order [press release, in Spanish] from Valderrama. During the Pinochet regime, Saravia exercised discretion over funds that belonged to the presidency and chief army command and would have been an accomplice to transfer the funds outside of the country. Also on Tuesday, Judge Victor Montiglio ordered the arrests [BBC report] of 129 suspects in connection with Pinochet-era "Dirty War" human rights violations on charges of aggravated kidnapping and homicide. Of the 129 former secret police agents, 25 have already been detained, and more than half of them have never faced charges. All 129 allegedly played a role in detaining and then guarding enforced disappearance victims. The orders were issued in connection with investigations on three separate "Dirty War" operations: Operation Condor, Operation Colombo [JURIST news archives], and the Calle Conferencia case. Montiglio had previously brought charges [JURIST report] against Pinochet for his role in Operacion Colombo.

In April, Montiglio charged [JURIST report] three former senior Pinochet-era military officers as accomplices for their role in the October 1973 killings of 14 leftist political opponents as part of the so-called "Caravan of Death" [BBC backgrounder]. Pinochet's youngest son, former secretary, and estate executor have previously been indicted [JURIST report] for their actions around Pinochet's finances for maliciously making false or incomplete tax declarations. In January 2006, Pinochet's wife, four of five children, daughter-in-law, and former secretary and lawyer were indicted, but a year later the Santiago Court of Appeals dropped most of the charges [JURIST reports]. In October 2007, 23 family members and former associates, including Pinochet's wife, five children, former secretary, and three retired army generals, were indicted [JURIST report] on corruption charges for aiding Pinochet in the "misuse of fiscal funds" during his regime. The following month, the Supreme Court of Chile upheld an appeals court decision to drop the charges [JURIST reports] because the accused were not government employees at the time and thus could not be charged with embezzling government funds.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced [press release] Wednesday that pharmaceutical company Pfizer [corporate website] and its subsidiary have settled a health care fraud suit [fact sheet] for a record $2.3 billion. The DOJ brought a felony claim against Pfizer under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [materials] alleging that the drug Bextra was misbranded and promoted for "off-label" uses with the intent to defraud or mislead. Subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to the charges and agreed to pay a $1.195 billion fine, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the US. Pfizer has also agreed to pay $1 billion to settle civil claims brought under the False Claims Act [text] alleging that it illegally promoted the drugs Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox and Lyrica, caused false claims to be submitted to health care programs, and paid kickbacks to health care providers. The settlement is the largest civil fraud settlement against a pharmaceutical company in US history. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [official website] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the settlement will secure the future of Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs. Pfizer denied all of the civil allegations [press release] except those that involve the improper promotion of Zyvox. Additionally, the pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with the HHS that sets new policies and requires them to continue the maintenance of a compliance program for five years. At a press conference [prepared remarks] Wednesday, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli maintained that "combating health care fraud is one of this Administration’s top law enforcement priorities."

In July, Pfizer reached a final settlement [JURIST report] with the Nigerian state of Kano over allegedly illegal clinical trials [BBC backgrounder] of the then-experimental antibiotic Trovan [FDA backgrounder] conducted in 1996. The suit accused the company of administering meningitis medication to 200 Nigerian children, 100 of which included Trovan, without government authorization or guardian consent. The Nigerian state of Kano claimed that the testing resulted in the death of 11 children and the incapacitation of 181 others and demanded $2.75 billion in damages. The company has denied the allegations, calling its actions ethical and beneficial, and is expected to pay $75 million to settle the suit.

[JURIST] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] has announced [declaration, PDF] that they would not release further documents regarding investigations into alleged detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Filed late Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act suit [materials] brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], the declaration maintains that the withheld documents and information describing interrogation and rendition procedures are "highly sensitive" and fall into FOIA exceptions. The unreleased information supposedly details how the CIA developed its program and coordinated with other US agencies, how it targeted terrorists, and how it worked with its liaison partners to develop "information that was essential to protecting the United States." The declaration argues that releasing such information would expose the names of CIA employees and sources, intra-agency discussions and deliberations, attorney-client communications, and private personnel files. The ACLU responded [press release] to the filing, saying that the arguments are "utterly disconnected from the Obama administration's stated positions" on ending torture and restoring transparency.

Last week, the CIA released letters and memoranda [JURIST report] detailing the conduction of overseas interrogations that included sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation and physical abuse. The documents, which analyzed the legality of "enhanced interrogation" procedures, were released pursuant to a court order resulting from the ACLU FOIA litigation. Also last week, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will "open a preliminary review" [JURIST report] into allegations of prisoner abuse by CIA interrogators during the Bush administration. In July, a former CIA counter-terrorism agent reported that waterboarding techniques were used prior to the issuance of legal memos authorizing the practice [JURIST reports]. Also in July, former DOJ lawyer and memo author John Yoo declared his intent to appeal a ruling that allowed a lawsuit [JURIST reports] against him for complicity in torture. The suit claims that Yoo's legal opinions endorsing certain interrogation techniques led to torture.

[JURIST] The Colombian House of Representatives [official website, in Spanish] on Tuesday voted 85-5 [official results, DOC, in Spanish] to approve a bill [text, PPS, in Spanish] to hold a referendum on whether President Alvaro Uribe [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] can run for a third presidential term. There were 76 abstentions. To pass the bill, 83 votes were necessary, and one of the additional votes came from a representative who had vowed to abstain [El Heraldo report, in Spanish] from voting because of a preliminary investigation into his actions in the 2004 voting process on the constitutional amendment that allowed Uribe to run for a second term. The bill will now have to be evaluated within the next 90 days by the Constitutional Court [official website, in Spanish]. Also Tuesday, the Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] of Colombia issued a decision [El Heraldo report, in Spanish] to continue investigating 86 members of Congress for alleged irregularities and receiving political favors during the 2004 voting process and for ties to paramilitary forces. On Wednesday, a leading conservative senator accused of receiving political favors in 2004 turned himself in [Telam report, in Spanish] after the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for him on Tuesday. The opposition and members of academia have decried [press release, PDF, in Spanish] the proposed referendum as a severe damage to democracy, and some Uribe supporters have also spoken against the measure. Uribe has not officially announced whether he would run for re-election if the referendum results were in favor of allowing a third term.

The Colombian Senate [official website] in May approved [press release, in Spanish; JURIST report] a proposal to hold a referendum on amending the country's constitution [text, in Spanish] to allow for a third presidential term. Uribe was elected to a second term in 2006 after a similar referendum, approved by Congress [NYT report] in December 2004 and the Constitutional Court [JURIST report] in October 2005, lifted the original one-term limit. In June 2008, the Colombian Supreme Court ruled [AP report] that a legal inquiry should be held into the election after it found that a legislator had been bribed to help push through the constitutional changes. In response, Uribe called for a referendum [JURIST report] on the election.