[JURIST] This week's trials of those involved in the deadly July riots in Urumqi [JURIST news archive], the capital of China's Xinjiang province, failed to meet [HRW release] Chinese and international fairness and due process standards Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said Friday. HRW alleges that defendants were not allowed access to the lawyers of their choice due to veiled government threats against lawyers who would take cases and not cooperate with the government. HRW also claims that the cases went to judges based on their political leanings, violating the defendants' rights to an independent judge. Finally, HRW claims that the government violated both Chinese law and international standards by not announcing the trials and closing the proceedings to international journalists and observers. Other trials are expected as this week's defendants represent only a small number of the 108 people charged [JURIST report] with crimes related to the protests.

On Thursday, the Urumqi People's Court sentenced six individuals to death and three to life in prison for their role in the protests. Earlier this week, six other individuals were sentenced to death [JURIST report], and one more was sentenced to life in prison, for their roles in the riots between Han Chinese and Uighur residents that claimed the lives of approximately 200 people. Residents of the region claim that the majority of the deaths were at the hands of Chinese authorities, but Chinese state media [Xinhua report] has reported that most of the deaths were due to protesters. For their part, the Chinese government has admitted that police were responsible for 12 of the deaths [JURIST report]. The Muslim Uighur population is opposed [BBC backgrounder] to China's restrictive bans on religious practice and says that the recent influx of Han Chinese has disenfranchised non-Chinese-speaking Uighurs.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] refused [opinion, PDF] Friday to force the Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official websites] to release non-redacted versions of documents that allegedly describe the torture and abuse of 14 Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees. Judge Royce Lamberth denied a request [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text], ruling that the documents fell under two exemptions of the FOIA allowing government agencies to keep information classified if allowed by executive order or by statute. Although the court originally ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the government did not have to release the documents last October, it agreed to rehear the case in light of several subsequent developments, including President Barack Obama's executive orders to end the use of certain enhanced interrogation techniques and close Guantanamo Bay, as well as the government's decision to declassify [JURIST reports] Bush-administration memos outlining the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. In June, the CIA released [JURIST report] redacted versions of the documents, but the ACLU maintained its demand that the agency release non-redacted versions. The ACLU announced that it plans to appeal [press release] the ruling.

Last month, OpenTheGovernment.org [advocacy website] reported that the Obama administration has improved government transparency [JURIST report] over the Bush administration, but there is more that should be done. Also in September, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced [JURIST report] plans to increase transparency in the government's use of its state secrets privilege. That same week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] requesting information on the treatment of prisoners at Bagram Air Base [JURIST news archive] in Afghanistan. The lawsuit came after a CIA announcement [JURIST report] that the agency would not release any more documents related to the treatment of prisoners at Bagram. In August, the ACLU successfully forced the CIA to release documents [JURIST report] detailing the use of sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, and physical abuse overseas as interrogation techniques during the Bush administration.

[JURIST] Taiwan's Constitutional Court [official website, in Chinese] on Friday dismissed an appeal by former president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who faces a life sentence [JURIST report] on corruption charges. Chen's appeal was based on a claim that his constitutional rights were violated when judges were replaced [AFP report] during the proceedings against him. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) [official website, in Chinese], previously led by Chen, has argued [press release] that the judicial process "contained flaws and disputes" that were in violation of procedural justice. Citing political bias, the DPP has demanded an end to Chen's detention and has called for the court to be "transparent and open."

An additional charge [JURIST report] was filed against Chen last month, after his conviction, alleging that he embezzled over $330,000. Last month, the Taipei District Court denied [JURIST report] Chen's request for release pending appeal. Chen has filed suit [JURIST report] against the three judges hearing his case, claiming that they were unjustly prolonging his detention. Chen was initially indicted [JURIST report] on the corruption charges in December. He 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.

[JURIST] A British High Court ruled [judgment, PDF] Friday that previously redacted text regarding the alleged torture of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed [JURIST news archive] should be publicly disclosed. The text in question relates to Mohamed's allegations that, while being held in Pakistan, he was tortured by Pakistani agents and interrogated by US and UK agents who were complicit in his abuse. The seven paragraphs at issue were not made public in the court's 2008 ruling on the matter at the request of Foreign Secretary David Miliband [official profile], the listed defendant. Miliband and others were concerned that the release of the information would pose a risk to the national security of the UK and its relations with the US. Lord Justice John Thomas and Justice David Lloyd Jones reversed their prior holdings, concluding that:

[A]s the public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming, and as the risk to national security judged objectively on the evidence is not a serious one, we should restore the redacted paragraphs to our first judgment...[and] shall therefore re-issue our first judgment with the paragraphs restored.