[JURIST] The trial of war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] is scheduled to begin October 19, according to a press release [text] from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] Wednesday. Presiding Judge O-Gon Kwon said the trial of the former Bosnian Serb leader is likely to last between two-and-a-half to three years. Karadzic faces 11 charges [amended indictment, PDF] including genocide and murder, for war crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. Also on Tuesday, Kwon denied a request [AP report] from Karadzic, who is representing himself, for a 10-month delay in order to allow him to prepare his case. A pre-trial conference has been set for October 6.

Last month, Karadzic sued the Serbian government for allegedly kidnapping him prior to announcing his arrest [JURIST reports] last year. He claimed that Serbian authorities officially reported his arrest three days after he was actually detained, delaying his appearance before a judge. Karadzic's capture came 13 years after being indicted by the ICTY in 1995.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] reheard oral arguments [day call, PDF] Wednesday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [oral argument transcript, PDF; Cornell LII backgrounder] to determine whether two precedent cases that uphold restraints on corporate election spending should be overturned. The two cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [Oyez backgrounders], upheld the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) [text, PDF], which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] argues allows them to regulate the release of and advertising for a 90-minute documentary questioning then-Senator Hillary Clinton's qualifications to serve as US president. Petitioner Citizens United [advocacy website], a non-profit conservative advocacy corporation that produced the film, appealed on broad First Amendment grounds a decision [opinion, PDF] by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], which held that the movie was "electioneering communication" within the meaning of BCRA. At oral argument [recorded audio], counsel for Citizens United argued, "the most fundamental right that we can exercise in a democracy under the First Amendment is dialogue and communication about political candidates. We have wrapped up that freedom, smothered that freedom, with the most complicated set of regulations and bureaucratic controls." Counsel for the FEC argued that the Court show follow precedent, saying, "For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito seemed open to removing federal limits on corporate campaign spending, while Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor implied that they would issue a much narrower ruling. Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia have already said that they support overturning Austin and McConnell.

The Court originally heard oral arguments in March, but ordered a rehearing [JURIST reports] at the end of the 2008 term. The government had argued the Court's decisions in McConnell and Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life [opinion, PDF] allowed them to regulate the video because it was funded by a corporation and could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an appeal to vote against Clinton. Citizens United argued that the movie was the kind of "robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest" that the First Amendment was designed to protect.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Tuesday affirmed [opinion, PDF] a district court decision [opinion, PDF] upholding the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) [text, PDF], which requires members of Congress to disclose more information about their fund-raising efforts and gifts they receive from lobbyists, and also prohibits former congress members from lobbying for a short period of time. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) [official website] initially brought suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], arguing that section 207 of the HLOGA violates the First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] by requiring NAM and other groups to disclose the names of its members who contribute more than $5,000 quarterly to lobbying activities and those who actively participate in those activities. In rejecting NAM's constitutional arguments, the DC Circuit held that the legislation met the constitutional requirements of serving a compelling government interest and narrow tailoring, and also that the legislation is sufficiently clear:

[T]here is more than a "substantial" relation between the governmental interest in greater transparency and the information that amended § 1603(b)(3) requires to be disclosed; in fact, the section's disclosure requirements are narrowly tailored and effectively advance that interest. Moreover ... the governmental interest in providing information about "who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much" they are spending to influence federal decisionmakers ... is not just "some legitimate governmental interest..." It is a "vital national interest." ...

We conclude that, although the statute may not be a paragon of clarity, it is not so vague as to violate the Constitution, even applying the heightened standard applicable to regulation of speech ... the HLOGA marks the legislature's attempt to shine increasing light on the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decisionmaking process. We find nothing unconstitutional in the way Congress has gone about that task.

[JURIST] Former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] has been transferred to the UK to serve his 20-year prison sentence [press release], the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] announced Tuesday. Krajisnik was originally sentenced to 27 years in 2006, but his sentenced was reduced to 20 years [JURIST reports] in March after the charges of murder, extermination, and persecution were overturned on appeal. He will serve the 20-year sentence for crimes against humanity. Krajisnik will be the third ICTY prisoner to begin serving his sentence in the UK [BBC report] under the rules of the ICTY.

At Krajisnik's 2006 trial, the ICTY found him not guilty on a charge of genocide for which prosecutors had requested a life sentence [JURIST report], instead sentencing him to 27 years imprisonment. Krajisnik was initially indicted together with Biljana Plavsic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive], the former Bosnian Serb president who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2003 after testifying against Krajisnik. Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive], with whom Krajisnik worked closely, was arrested last year [JURIST report] and currently faces war crimes charges before the ICTY.

[JURIST] The Buenos Aires Appeals Court in Argentina overturned the dismissal of murder charges against former president Fernando de la Rua [BBC profile] on Tuesday. The charges were dismissed in April by Judge Claudio Bonadio after he said that the prosecution had not established sufficient evidence [Buenos Aires Herald report] to show that de la Rua initiated the chain of events that led to the deaths of five protesters. The court reinstated the charges Tuesday, ordering a magistrate to continue with the investigation. De la Rua was originally charged with five counts of manslaughter [JURIST report] in October 2007 for allegedly ordering the Federal Police to halt a demonstration that resulted in five deaths and more than 100 injuries [AP report].

The deaths came during riots sparked by a national economic crisis [BBC report] that caused de la Rua to flee the presidential residence and eventually resign his office just two years into his term. De la Rua has also faced several other criminal charges. In 2008, he defended himself [JURIST report] against bribery charges. In December 2004, an Argentinian court charged [JURIST report] him with improperly allocating public funds for his own private use and for the use of his political party while serving in public office.

[JURIST] The German Bundestag [official website, in German] unanimously passed a law [draft bill, PDF, in German] Tuesday overturning the conviction of Nazi-regime "war traitors." Among those whose names have been cleared are resistance fighters, people who aided Jews, and even people who were convicted for speaking in critical terms about the regime. The law clears the convictions [FOCUS report, in German] of an estimated 30,000 convicted German citizens, of which about 20,000 were executed during World War II. Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries [official profile] emphasized [press release, in German] that regardless of the role each person who was branded a traitor actually played during the war, each one of them was a victim of the Nazi criminal justice system.

The ruling conservative Christian Democratic Union [party website, in German] originally resisted the law in favor of maintaining the former exoneration procedure, which was conducted on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Ministry of Justice [official website, in German], due to concern that some of the offenders may have actually caused harm to third parties and would unjustly benefit from the law. The coalition government reached an agreement [JURIST report] to draft the new law in July. The German parliament relied on new research [Holocaust Education summary, in German] by two military historians that found that most of the offenders were low ranking soldiers. Germany has also taken other legislative measures to combat Nazi-era offenses. In November, German lawmakers passed [JURIST report] a law intended to counter anti-Semitism [JURIST news archive] just before the 70th anniversary of Kristalnacht [PBS backgrounder], when Nazi troops destroyed thousands of Jewish businesses and synagogues. In 2002, the German parliament passed a law [backgrounder, in German] exonerating conscientious objectors, deserters, and homosexuals.

[JURIST] The UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) [official website] on Tuesday ordered [press release, PDF] Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC) [official website] to conduct a partial recount of votes from polling stations with high irregularities. According to ECC investigations:

The overwhelming majority in which the ECC found clear and convincing evidence of fraud were also characterized by either an exceptionally high number of presidential votes cast per station in relation to the number of ballots available; or an exceptionally high percentage of ballots cast for only one candidate; or both. The ECC also notes that the overwhelming majority of stations in which it found fraud had a number of ballots cast that were far in excess of what could be expected based on credible observer reports of low voter turnout.