[JURIST] Spain's lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies [official website, in Spanish] on Thursday approved [press release, in Spanish] a bill [text, PDF; in Spanish] that would ease restrictions on abortions [JURIST news archive]. The bill passed by a vote of 183-158 with two abstentions. Current Spanish abortion law dates from 1985, after the end of the Franco regime. Abortions are permitted only in the case of rape, up to 12 weeks, severe fetal malformation, up to 22 weeks, or if the woman's physical or mental health is in danger. Under the proposed legislation [El Pais report, in Spanish], abortion would be permitted up to 14 weeks for any reason and up to 22 weeks if there is severe fetal malformation or a serious risk to the mother. Women aged 16 or 17 would also be allowed to have an abortion without parental consent, but would have to inform their parents. The bill must now go before the Senate [official website, in Spanish].

In October, hundreds of thousands of protesters rallied in Madrid [JURIST report] in opposition to the proposed legislation. Spain's Council of State approved the bill [JURIST report] in September. The changes were proposed [JURIST report] in March by a panel of legal and medical experts led by Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido [official website, in Spanish], eliciting widespread protests [JURIST report] throughout Spain. The panel was formed [JURIST report] last September at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero [official profile, in Spanish] as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage [JURIST report] and streamlined divorce proceedings. The conservative Popular Party [party website, in Spanish] has repeatedly expressed the opinion [El Pais report, in Spanish] that relaxed abortion laws would stand in opposition to Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution [text, in Spanish], which guarantees the right to life. Spanish abortion laws [BBC backgrounder] are among the most restrictive in European nations.

[JURIST] The chief justice of the Russian Supreme Court [official website, in Russian] on Thursday ordered a review of the 2003 arrest of Platon Lebedev [defense website], business partner of former Yukos oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive]. The decision came after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in 2007 that Lebedev's arrest and pre-trial detention violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. The ECHR awarded awarded Lebedev more than USD $4,300 in damages and almost $10,000 to cover legal fees. The review could be considered as soon as next week [AP report]. If the court finds that Lebedev's rights were violated, he could receive a new trial.

Platon and Lebedev are serving an eight-year prison sentence after being convicted [JURIST report] in 2005 on fraud and tax evasion charges stemming from an alleged attempt to embezzle and strip Yukos of valuable assets. The two are currently on trial on additional related charges of money laundering and embezzlement, to which they have pleaded not guilty [JURIST reports]. They could face up to 20 additional years in prison if convicted. Critics have claimed that the charges against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are politically motivated due to Khodorkovsky's opposition against former Russian president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin [JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] A South Korean court on Wednesday issued an arrest warrant for former prime minister Han Myeong-sook on bribery charges. Han is accused of accepting USD $50,000 from former Korea Express CEO Kwak Young-wook in 2007 in exchange for helping him become president of Korea South-East Power Co., an affiliate of the state-run Korea Electric Power Corporation [corporate websites]. Han, a senior adviser to the main opposition Democratic Party, has denied the allegations [Korea Times report], calling the charges politically motivated. It is unclear whether authorities will exercise the arrest warrant or continue to seek voluntary cooperation, but Han has already ignored two subpoenas issued earlier this month. An indictment could be issued [JoongAng Daily report] next week.

Han served as the country's first female prime minister under president Roh Moo-hyun [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive] from April 2006 - March 2007. Roh, who was himself the target of a bribery investigation, died [JURIST report] in May from an apparent suicide. Shortly before his death, prosecutors had questioned Roh on suspicion that he accepted up to $6 million in bribes from Park Yeon-cha, a financial supporter who is also CEO of a shoe manufacturing company. Roh admitted that his wife had received $1 million from Park, but said the money was a loan rather than a bribe. Roh became president in 2003 after campaigning heavily against corruption.

[JURIST] The leader of France's conservative party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) [party website, in French] announced Wednesday that he will introduce legislation banning the burqa [JURIST news archive] in public. Jean-Francois Cope's announcement [Le Figaro report, in French] comes at the end of a six-month investigation by a special commission into the causes, effects, and ramifications of Muslim women wearing the burqa in France. Also Wednesday, French Immigration Minister Eric Besson [official profile, in French] announced that he would seek to deny French citizenship [NYT report] to any woman choosing to wear the burqa in public, saying that it showed a lack of commitment to integrate in France. Besson has also called for a public debate on the definition of French culture, to be wrapped up in January.

Cope's announcement is in direct opposition to the National Assembly's November decision not to push for specific legislation [JURIST report] banning the burqa. The commission began its hearings in July after being established [JURIST report] a month earlier to address the issue. The controversy between the Muslim community and the secular French government has gone on for several years. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] unanimously ruled [JURIST report] that there was no human rights violation when a French school expelled two Muslim students for refusing to remove their headscarves. Last July, a Muslim woman's citizenship application was denied [JURIST report] because she failed to assimilate to French culture and practiced a type of Islam found incompatible with French values. In 2004, France passed a law [JURIST report] banning students from conspicuous religious items, including Muslim headscarves, in schools.

[JURIST] Credit Suisse [corporate website], Switzerland's second largest bank, agreed [DOJ press release] Wednesday to pay more than $500 million in fines to both the US government and New York state for violating US sanctions against Iran and other countries. According to a criminal information filed Wednesday, Credit Suisse violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [text, PDF] between 2002 and 2007 by helping businesses from Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Myanmar get around American banking laws. Allegations include that Credit Suisse employees put together a pamphlet for Iranian clients, instructing them how to disguise their forms [Washington Times report] in order to escape notice and gain access to American markets. US Attorney General Eric Holder commented [remarks]:

The sanctions put in place against these countries have been deemed appropriate and necessary by numerous Administrations, and are followed by hundreds of financial institutions around the globe. And these rules matter - they keep dollars out of the hands of countries and individuals that threaten U.S. interests abroad and our national security here at home.

The U.S. financial system is built on trust and transparency. Our banks must know what payments they are processing and for whom. Credit Suisse's decades-long scheme to flout the rules that govern our financial institutions robbed our system of the legitimacy that is fundamental to it success. We cannot let this stand, and today's settlement sends a strong message that we will not let it stand.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Wednesday granted Yemeni Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Saeed Hatim's petition for habeas corpus, ordering his release. The US Department of Defense [official website] alleged that Hatim trained at the al Farouq paramilitary camp in Afghanistan. Judge Ricardo Urbina's ruling remains sealed [Miami Herald report], and lawyers have declined to elaborate on his reasoning. A spokesperson for the US Department of Justice [official website] said the government is currently considering its options.

Urbina's ruling comes just two days after Judge Thomas Hogan denied [transcript, PDF] Yemeni Guantanamo detainee Musa'ab Al-Madhwani's petition for habeas corpus, ruling that the government may continue to detain him [JURIST report]. Madhwani allegedly trained at the same camp as Hatim. Hogan excluded from evidence statements Madhwani made to interrogators, finding them to be the product of abusive techniques, but admitted statements made during military hearings because they were given years after the alleged abuse. Hogan found that while he does not believe that Madhwani poses a threat, the government met its burden of proving that he was a member of al Qaeda. Wednesday's ruling brings the total number of granted habeas petitions to 32, with just nine victories for the government.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] said Wednesday that the decision to purchase [JURIST report] the Thomson Correctional Center (TCC) [DOC backgrounder] in northwestern Illinois to house inmates from Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] could help close the facility over the next several months. Holder told a press conference that the purchase of the TCC removes a significant obstacle for closing the facility. Despite initially expressing hope that Guantanamo will close within the next few months, he later told Reuters that it may not close until the summer [Reuters report] or early next fall. Holder did emphasize that while the January 22 deadline will be missed, the facility will be closed.

Last month, the White House announced the resignation [JURIST report] of White House Counsel Gregory Craig, after months of criticism of his management of Guantanamo Bay policy initiatives. Also in November, the Center for American Progress (CAP) [advocacy website] reported that the likely failure to meet the self-imposed deadline for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is due to several missteps by the Obama administration. In October, Holder announced that the Obama administration may miss its January deadline for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, echoing prior statements [JURIST reports] by top administration officials. US President Barack Obama originally issued the executive order to close Guantanamo within a year [JURIST report] last January 22, two days after taking office.