[JURIST] Canadian former Chief of Defence Staff [National Defence website] Rick Hillier [profile] testified in front of the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan [official website] on Wednesday, denouncing allegations [JURIST report] that Afghan detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghani authority were likely tortured by Afghan officials. Hellier dismissed statements made last week by Richard Colvin,who represented the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) [official website] in Kandahar from 2006-2007, accusing both the government and military of ignoring and even suppressing reports [Reuters report] of torture by Afghan authorities. Colvin, currently deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, cited upwards of 12 memos that he sent to top officials beginning in early 2006 indicating that captives transferred from a Canadian military base in Kandahar to Afghan authorities were subsequently tortured. After reviewing the reports, Hillier insisted [CBC report] that the reports did not contain any information that would require Canadian officials to bring them to his attention.

Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] filed complaints [JURIST report] in 2007 against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal [official website], alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan. Amnesty accused Canada of violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text] by turning Afghan detainees over to Afghan authorities without any protection against later cruel and unusual punishment. In March 2008, the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) [official website] decided to hold public hearings to investigate the country's detainee transfer process in Afghanistan despite a move from the Canadian Department of Justice to block the inquiry [JURIST reports]. In September, the Canadian Federal Court ruled [JURIST report] that the MPCC's authority was limited to the investigation of military police, and it did not have the authority "to investigate government policy and to inquire as to the state of knowledge of the Government of Canada at large."

[JURIST] The UK's Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary [official website] Wednesday released a report [PDF] critical of the manner in which British law enforcement handled protesters at the G20 summit held in London in April. The report also detailed a number of proposals to deal with future protester gatherings, including more proportionate amounts of force, increased training for police forces on techniques for handling public gatherings, and increased communication between protesters and police. In a release [PDF], Chief Inspector Denis O'Connor said, "the world is changing and the police need to think about changing their approach to policing protest." O'Connor also called for a comprehensive implementation of the changes, as British handling of large crowds will soon be on display again as the 2012 Summer Olympics [Guardian report] in London draw near.

The Inspectorate report came at the behest of Scotland Yard in the wake of the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson [Guardian report] during the G20. Police handling of protesters was also an issue at the second G20 summit of the year, held in Pittsburgh in September. There were no deaths during the Pittsburgh G20, but police tactics, including the use of pepper spray, smoke canisters, and rubber bullets [New York Times report], was questioned. Perhaps the most controversial tactic was the use of the Long Range Acoustic Device [Post-Gazette report] against citizens, a tactic that raised a number questions and drew concern from commentators [Tribune-Review Op-Ed] and civil liberties advocates [JURIST Forum].

[JURIST] The Honduran Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] on Wednesday ruled that ousted former president Manuel Zelaya [JURIST news archive] cannot legally return to office. The court's decision [Reuters report] is a significant blow to Zelaya's prospects for regaining power. Under the so-called Tegucigalpa/San Jose accord [Honduras News materials], Zelaya would have been able to return to the office of president assuming Supreme Court approval and an affirmative vote by the Honduran legislature. The legislature's vote, originally scheduled for November 29th [Reuters report], has been moved back to December 2nd. It is not clear what effect the Court's non-binding opinion will have on that vote. Similarly, it is not clear how the decision will effect the results of the Honduran presidential election [Guardian report], scheduled for November 29th. Neither Zelaya nor current president Roberto Micheletti are on the ballot for that election.

The Honduran Supreme Court's opinion and the impending presidential election may signal an end to the five month-old saga that has drawn international attention to the small country. That saga began with a military coup [JURIST report] when the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to be removed from power in June. In September, Zelaya returned to Honduras after a three-month period of exile, seeking refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. In late October, the possibility of his return to power was announced [JURIST report] by the interim government, with the condition of judicial and legislative approval.