[JURIST] The co-investigating judges for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] released an order [text, PDF] Wednesday that will allow the use of the controversial legal concept of joint criminal enterprise (JCE) [CTM backgrounder] to prosecute surviving Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive] leaders for government actions. JCE allows courts to charge defendants who may be guilty as part of a political regime for criminal acts done by others in the furtherance of the regime's authority. The judges found that JCE can only be used to prosecute crimes of international law and not for crimes under Cambodian law. The international crimes that can be prosecuted [ECCC press release] under JCE include crimes against humanity, war crimes (grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions), genocide, crimes against internationally protected persons, and destruction of cultural property during armed conflict. The order to allow the use of JCE came after the defense team of former Cambodian foreign minister Ieng Sary [TrialWatch profile; JURIST news archive] requested that JCE not be applicable in the ECCC.

The ECCC, charged with trying those responsible for atrocities committed during the rule of the Khmer Rouge, named a new head co-prosecutor last week, after the September resignation [JURIST reports] of Canadian Robert Petit. UK lawyer Andrew Cayley, who will serve alongside a Cambodian prosecutor, has previously been in private practice defending alleged war criminal Charles Taylor [JURIST news archive] in The Hague. Also last week, the ECCC rejected [JURIST report] a request by Ieng Sary's lawyers to examine two international judges for bias saying that such a charge must be based on fact and not from mere press criticism. In February, HRW warned that ECCC trials were in danger of being tainted for their failure to follow fair trial standards, and in January a Cambodian court agreed to hear a corruption case [JURIST reports] involving two ECCC judges.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether imposing class arbitration on parties is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [9 USC § 1-14 text] when that issue is silent in the parties' arbitration clauses. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that construing the arbitration clause to permit class arbitration "did not manifestly disregard the law" because the parties specifically agreed that the arbitration panel would decide on the scope of the clause and, therefore, the panel did not exceed its authority. Counsel for the petitioners argued:

Unlike courts, arbitrators derive their authority solely from the consent of the parties to a particular agreement.

That agreement determines not only what the parties have agreed to arbitrate, but just as fundamentally, with whom they have agreed to do so. And when the agreement reveals no intent, no meeting of the minds to add participants, but the arbitrators nonetheless extend their reach to hundreds of parties of other contracts, they violate the basic principle reflected in the FAA that their authority is created and circumscribed by an agreement.

What the arbitrators did here was interpret the contract as the parties asked them to. They did not impose their own policy judgment. And any judicial review is under very deferential FAA standards under Section 10, which is confined to correcting what amount to gross defects in the process.

[JURIST] A UK High Court judge ruled Tuesday that British Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Shaker Aamer must have access to secret documents that may contain evidence of torture. Aamer, the only British citizen remaining at the US military prison, petitioned the court [AP report] for access to the documents, which his lawyers believe show that his confessions were obtained through torture. Lord Justice Jeremy Sullivan ruled [BBC report] that Aamer, detained at Guantanamo since 2002, should have access to the documents, as the US government is currently working to determine whether he should be released. The British government expressed disappointment [AFP report] at the ruling and may try to block the release of the documents on the grounds that it would harm the public interest.

The ruling comes as the British government continues its legal battle to keep secret documents related to the alleged torture of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed [JURIST news archive]. Last month, the UK High Court ruled [JURIST report] that the details of the Mohamed's detention in Pakistan in 2002 must be released, the latest in a series of back and forth rulings on whether redacted materials regarding Mohamed's detention should be disclosed. An October interim ruling [JURIST report] by Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones resulted in a redacted release, which the High Court indicated it would revisit after receiving submissions from both the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) [official website] and Mohamed. Also in November, a separate judge on the High Court ruled that, in Mohamed's separate suit for damages, information relating to his treatment at Guantanamo Bay may be withheld [JURIST report] under a "closed material procedure." Mohamed was returned to the UK in February, after charges against him were dismissed in October 2008 [JURIST reports]. Mohamed had been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit terrorism [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Human rights conditions in 12 Arab nations continued to deteriorate last year, according to a report [text, PDF, in Arabic; synopsis, PDF] issued Tuesday by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) [advocacy website]. The publication, entitled "Bastion of Impunity, Mirage of Reform," is the group's second annual [press release]. The report condemns violations of human rights, including those against political and reform activists, focusing on Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen. According to the report, Iraq [JURIST news archive] continues to be the region’s worst offender despite "relative improvements," while Egypt, Morocco, and Bahrain are identified as having regressed significantly since last year. The report criticizes the Organization of the Islamic Conference [official website] for its efforts to subvert human rights protections and international monitors on governmental accountability. Additionally, the League of Arab States [official website, in Arabic] is condemned for citing "national sovereignty" as grounds for refusing to take action against rights abuses in the region, including those occurring in Sudan [JURIST news archive].

CIHRS released its inaugural report [JURIST report], "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Repression," last year to coincide with the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. That edition also found Iraq to be the leading offender in human rights violations, a conclusion similar to those of other prominent human rights and refugee [JURIST reports] organizations. Last year, the UN envoy to Iraq praised the creation of an Independent High Commission for Human Rights [JURIST report], calling it a "milestone" for human rights in the region.

[JURIST] A judge on the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday reduced the sentences of two men convicted of spying for Cuba as part of the so-called "Cuban Five" [advocacy website; JURIST news archive]. Judge Joan Lenard reduced [Miami Herald report] the life sentence of Ramon Labanino, also known as Luis Medina, to 30 years and reduced the sentence of Fernando Gonzalez from 19 years to 18 years. Lenard had reduced the sentence of a third man, Antonio Guerrero, from life to 22 years in October. The reductions in sentences came after the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] ruled last year that the sentences were excessive. Medina, Gonzales, and Guerrero said [press release] Tuesday:

Three of us have come to the Miami Court to be re-sentenced due to an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that our sentences had been erroneously imposed.

Our brother Gerardo Hernandez, who is serving two life terms plus 15 years, has been arbitrarily excluded from this re-sentencing process. His situation remains the principal injustice in our case. The US Government is well aware of the falseness of the accusations against him and the unfairness of his sentence.

[JURIST] The US government announced [press release] Tuesday that a settlement agreement [text, PDF] worth more than $3.4 billion has been reached in a 13-year class action lawsuit [plaintiffs' website; JURIST news archive] concerning the US government's alleged mismanagement of trust funds [DOI materials] for a group of some 500,000 American Indians. US Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official profiles] announced the settlement [DOI backgrounder] of Cobell v. Salazar at a press conference [video] Tuesday. Under the terms of the agreement, litigation will end, and the federal government will distribute funds totaling $1.4 billion to class members. The government will also establish a $2 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests. Finally, the government will establish a $60 million fund to provide better access to higher education for Indian youth. Plaintiffs had rejected [JURIST report] a $7 billion settlement offer in 2007, but named plaintiff Elouise Cobell said [press release] Tuesday:

Although we have reached a settlement totaling more than $3.4 billion dollars, there is little doubt this is significantly less than the full amount to which individual Indians are entitled. ...

Nevertheless we are compelled to settle now by the sobering realization that our class grows smaller each year, each month, and every day, as our elders die, and are forever prevented from receiving their just compensation. We also face the uncomfortable, but unavoidable fact that a large number of individual money account holders currently subsist in the direst poverty, and this settlement can begin to address that extreme situation and provide some hope and a better quality of life for their remaining years.