[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a memorandum [text] directing the heads of government agencies to conduct a review of the tax delinquency status of all companies that compete for federal contracts. Citing a need to protect taxpayer money and a total unpaid tax figure in excess of $5 billion, Obama authorized department heads to review the delinquency status of those companies seeking federal contracts and:

to evaluate practices of contracting officers and debarring officials in response to contractors' certifications of serious tax delinquencies and to provide me, within 90 days, recommendations on process improvements to ensure these contractors are not awarded new contracts, including a plan to make contractor certifications available in a Government-wide database, as is already being done with other information on contractors.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in two cases. In Berghuis v. Smith [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments on whether there is a constitutional violation when the African-American representation on a jury is disproportionate to the community population. There is a circuit split on whether the so-called the comparative-disparity test, which calculates the percentage of otherwise eligible jurors from a given group who are excluded from jury service, should be used to make such a determination. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the comparative-disparity test and held [opinion, PDF] that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community had been violated. Counsel for the government argued that, "[t]he Michigan Supreme Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that there was no unconstitutional underrepresentation and that there was no systematic exclusion." Counsel for the respondent defended application of the comparative-disparity test, dismissing justices' concerns that it wouldn't apply in areas with a relatively small minority population.

In Conkright v. Frommert [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments on whether a district court has an obligation to defer to an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) [text] plan administrator's reasonable interpretation of the terms of the plan if the plan administrator arrived at the interpretation outside the context of an administrative claim for benefits. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that a district court is under no obligation to defer to an ERISA plan administrator's interpretation and that a district court has "allowable discretion" to adopt any "reasonable" interpretation of the terms of the plan. Counsel for the petitioners argued:

Under either a deferential standard of review or a de novo standard, the plan administrator's interpretation should prevail. That interpretation, unlike the district court's interpretation, is grounded in the language of the plan. It recognizes the fundamental actuarial principle of the time value of money, and it avoids conferring windfalls.

[JURIST] A Vietnamese court on Wednesday convicted four democracy activists of subversion. After a one-day trial, prominent human rights lawyer Le Cong Dinh [JURIST news archive] was sentenced to five years [BBC report] in prison. Le Thang Long also received a five-year sentence, Nguyen Tien Trung was sentenced to seven years, and Internet entrepreneur Tran Huynh Duy Thuc received a 16-year sentence. The defendants were accused [Reuters report] of activities aimed at ending Vietnam's communist rule. Dinh, the best known of the defendants, admitted [NYT report] to advocating multi-party democracy in Vietnam and joining the banned Democratic Party of Vietnam.

Last month, a Vietnamese court sentenced [JURIST report] pro-democracy dissident Tran Anh Kim to five-and-a-half years in prison for subversion. Dinh was charged [JURIST report] in June with "colluding with foreign reactionaries to sabotage the Vietnamese State," in violation of Article 88 [text] of the Vietnamese penal code, for the alleged distribution of anti-government documents. He was also disbarred [JURIST report] following his arrest. Earlier this year, two Vietnamese newspaper editors were dismissed from their jobs for protesting the arrests of two journalists [JURIST reports] who reported on government corruption. The arrested reporters, who were accused of "abusing freedom and democracy," were sentenced to two years of prison and "re-education" for reporting on the so-called PMU 18 corruption scandal [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] released its detailed judgment [judgment, PDF] regarding the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) [text] on Wednesday. The ordinance granted President Asif Ali Zardari [official website] and 8,000 other government officials immunity from charges including corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between January 1986, and October 1999. A special 17-member panel of court unanimously ruled the NRO unconstitutional [JURIST report] in December, paving the way for corruption charges to be brought against Zardari. Zardari is immune from prosecution while in office, but challenges to his eligibility as a presidential candidate are expected. Many other government officials could face immediate prosecution.

Last month, a Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant [JURIST report] for Interior Minister Rehman Malik [official profile] on corruption charges. Malik is among 19 officials whose corruption cases the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) [official website] has petitioned to reopen [PTI report] in an anti-corruption court in Rawalpindi. The NAB has also petitioned a Lahore court to reopen the cases of 32 individuals, including that of Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar [official profile]. The NRO was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in 2007 as part of a power-sharing accord allowing former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [BBC profile] to return to the country despite corruption charges [JURIST report] she had faced.

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] on Tuesday dismissed [judgment, DOC; in French] a suit against Italy by Palestinian immigrants alleging illegal expulsion from the country. In a statement [press release] explaining its decision, the court questioned the existence of at least 34 of the 84 immigrants, and was unable to locate 57 of the individuals. Regarding the 14 individuals who were known to have been expelled to Libya, the court said, "the expulsion order against each one of them had been individually endorsed by a district court following a hearing held in the presence of a lawyer and an interpreter." Reaction to the news was mixed [ANSA report], with some hailing the result as a showing that the original immigration by the individuals was illegal, and others expressing concern over a culture of insensitivity towards the suffering of others.

Illegal immigration is a growing problem in Italy, where about 36,000 illegal immigrants arrived by boat in 2008. Earlier this month, a group of African immigrants was evacuated [JURIST report] from the town of Rosarno after violence was directed towards migrant farm workers there. In August, rights groups criticized Italy [JURIST report] for returning a suspected terrorist to Tunisia, disregarding obligations imposed by the ECHR. In July, the Italian Senate approved a law [JURIST report] that would criminalize illegal immigration with a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and up to 6 months detention before deportation.

[JURIST] Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday filed an appeal [text, PDF] with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] challenging the imposition of a court-appointed lawyer [JURIST report]. Karadzic argued that the trial court erred by not allowing him to choose standby counsel in violation of his right to "legal assistance of his own choosing" under Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute of the ICTY and the Appeals Chamber ruling [text, PDF] in Prosecutor v. Seselj. Karadzic alleged that by not removing the court-appointed counsel, the trial chamber sanctioned the "unreasonable and arbitrary selection procedure which resulted in the exclusion of all lawyers from the Balkans" and the "imposition of a lawyer on the accused that the accused did not want and cannot trust."

Last month the Trial Chamber rejected Karadzic's motion [JURIST reports] challenging the legitimacy of the court. In November, the ICTY denied a motion filed by Karadzic requesting appellate review of the court's decision to assign standby counsel [JURIST reports]. The ICTY began Karadzic's trial in absentia in October after Karadzic failed to appear [JURIST reports] in court. Karadzic had announced that he planned to boycott [JURIST report] his trial because he had not been given adequate time to prepare a defense. The ICTY has also repeatedly rejected [JURIST report] Karadzic's argument that he should be immune from trial based on an alleged agreement with former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Karadzic faces 11 charges [amended indictment, PDF], including genocide and murder, for war crimes allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian genocide [PPU backgrounder]. In June, the ICTY said that Karadzic's trial was expected to conclude in early 2012 [JURIST report]. His trial is planned to be the tribunal's last.

[JURIST] UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown [official profile] announced [statement] the country's plans for enhanced airport security measures and anti-terrorism efforts to the House of Commons [official website] on Wednesday. The new security provisions include increasing intelligence information-sharing with foreign agencies and extending the Home Office Watchlist to include both a no-fly list and a list of individuals subject to enhanced security screenings in airports. The enhanced screenings will include explosive trace testing, use of dogs and new body scanners. Brown said:

The action we are taking to counter terrorism at its source in the Afghanistan Pakistan region and elsewhere is a central part of our wider counter-terrorist strategy, and all our actions which we will update regularly are founded on what is and must be the first and most important duty of government: the protection and security of the British people.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously in Kucana v. Holder [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a federal statute [8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) text] gives federal courts jurisdiction to review rulings on motions to reopen decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) [DOJ backgrounder]. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any action of the attorney general "the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General." The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petitioner's claim. In reversing that decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

We granted certiorari to decide whether the proscription of judicial review stated in §1252(a)(2)(B) applies not only to Attorney General determinations made discretionary by statute, but also to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation. We hold that the key words "specified under this subchapter" refer to statutory, but not to regulatory, specifications. We so rule based on the longstanding exercise of judicial review of administrative rulings on reopening motions, the text and context of §1252(a)(2)(B), and the history of therelevant statutory provisions. We take account, as well, of the "presumption favoring interpretations of statutes [to] allow judicial review of administrative action." Separation-of-powers concerns, more-over, caution us against reading legislation, absent clear statement, to place in executive hands authority to remove cases from the Judiciary's domain.

[JURIST] Spokesperson for the First People of Kalahari (FPK) [Right Livelihood backgrounder] Roy Sesana announced [AllAfrica report] Tuesday that his organization plans to take its land dispute case against the Botswana government to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website, JURIST news archive]. The FPK is an advocacy group representing San, or Bushmen [SI backgrounder] people who were relocated by the government from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) in 1997. Sesana said that peace talks with President Ian Khama [BBC profile] had broken down and that the FPK would initiate proceedings in the ICJ because previous court orders granting land rights to the Bushmen have been ignored.

In 2006, the High Court of Botswana ruled [JURIST report] that the government's eviction of Bushmen inhabiting the Kalahari desert was "unlawful and unconstitutional." The suit was brought by 239 members of the San tribe aided by FPK and Survival International [advocacy website]. The Bushmen, whose ancestors have lived in the Kalahari desert for 20,000 years, claim that 12 percent of their fellow plaintiffs died in settlement camps since the government evicted them from the beginning in 1997. The Bushmen claimed that the eviction was motivated by the government's interest in increasing diamond mining operations, but the government cited concerns over the Bushmen's opposition to conservation efforts as the primary reason.

[JURIST] The Malaysian Federal Court on Wednesday postponed the sodomy trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim [official profile; JURIST news archive] until February 2 pending their decision on his access to prosecution evidence. Anwar's lawyers appealed to the Federal Court to enforce an earlier High Court order [Bernama report] granting access to evidence including recorded witness statements and medical reports. Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and two Federal Court judges failed to reach a decision [Bernama report] on the appeal and have deferred their decision until January 29. Anwar's lawyers contend the evidence is crucial [Sun Daily report] to preparing a proper defense. The delay comes a day after a Malaysian appeals court ruled [JURIST report] that the country's ban on sodomy is constitutional.

The trial, which was originally set to begin last year, has been postponed several times by Anwar's defense team. He has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to charges of sodomizing his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari, in 2008 and alleges that the prosecution is part of a government conspiracy to undermine his political agenda. Anwar's counsel sought unsuccessfully [JURIST report] to have the case thrown out last month. Anwar was Malaysia's deputy prime minister until he was fired in 1998 following sodomy charges of which he was initially convicted but later acquitted. He only recently reentered Malaysian politics following the expiration of a ten-year ban [JURIST report] against him for unrelated corruption charges. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in South Carolina v. North Carolina [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the Catawba River Water Supply Project (CRWSP), and Duke Energy Carolinas may intervene in the water dispute between the two states, but that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, may not. A special master recommended [report, PDF] that all three parties be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit brought by South Carolina over water flows from the Catawba River. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court:

Two of the three proposed intervenors have satisfied the standard for intervention in original actions that we articulated nearly 60 years ago in New Jersey v. New York. Accordingly, we overrule South Carolina's exceptions with respect to the CRWSP and Duke Energy, but we sustain South Carolina's exception with respect to the city of Charlotte, North Carolina.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in Wood v. Allen [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a state court reasonably concluded that, during the sentencing phase of a capital case, the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel. The Court affirmed the decision [opinion, PDF] of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, finding it had correctly applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) [text, PDF] to the review the state court decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded:

We hold simply that, even under petitioner's reading of § 2254(d)(2) [of the AEDPA], the state court's conclusion that Wood's counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.

[JURIST] Kenya's Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) decided Tuesday not to grant women equal marriage rights to men in the new constitution. References to civil society, religious groups, and rights of gays were also omitted [Daily Nation report] as the PSC reviewed recommendations from the Committee of Experts and decided which to include. The PSC, which is composed of members of parliament, will decide between a presidential or a parliamentary system [KBC report] for Kenya, a highly political question. The PSC is expected to spend the rest of the week debating the issues [Capital FM report] and next week drafting the new constitution.

The first draft of the constitution was unveiled [JURIST report] in November. The changes are intended to reduce the widespread injustice throughout the country, and specifically address issues that led to violence following the 2007 presidential elections [JURIST news archive]. In October, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan [official profile; JURIST news archive] called for constitutional reform in Kenya before the next electoral cycle begins in 15 months. In 2007, tens of thousands of protesters took to Kenya's streets accusing President Mwai Kibaki [official profile] of election fraud after early opinion polls suggested rival Raila Odinga [campaign website] was in the lead.

[JURIST] The federal trial of Aafia Siddiqui [JURIST news archive], a Pakistani woman with alleged ties to al Qaeda, began Tuesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website]. Siddiqui is charged [complaint, PDF] with assault and the attempted murder of a US officer after allegedly opening fire on agents at the Afghan detention facility where she was being held in July 2008. As soon as her trial began, Siddiqui became agitated and started screaming that she was innocent, causing her to be removed from the courtroom [Washington Post report]. Originally detained in Afghanistan because she was allegedly in possession of explosive chemicals and lists of New York City targets, Siddiqui has denied [BBC report] that she is part of any al Qaeda terrorist plot.

Siddiqui underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was judged fit to stand trial [JURIST report] in July. Siddiqui, who was extradited to the US in August of 2008, was shot in the abdomen during the July skirmish leading to her charges. She has since refused proper medical care as well as communication with her legal counsel. Siddiqui's family has insisted that she is not an al Qaeda agent and that the FBI has publicized misleading information about her. They say that Siddiqui, a former student at Brandeis University and MIT in Boston, may have been a victim of extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] after she vanished from Karachi, Pakistan in 2003. Defense lawyers have alleged that Siddiqui may have been wrongly detained and tortured [Washington Post report] at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Siddiqui was taken into custody in July 2008 after she was found loitering outside a provincial governor's compound with suspicious items in her handbag.

[JURIST] UK-based human rights group Reprieve [advocacy website] issued a statement [text] Tuesday suggesting that the Obama administration has suppressed information relating to the investigation of three 2006 Guantanamo Bay suicides [JURIST report] and urging further inquiries. The statement comes in response to an article [text] for an upcoming issue of Harper's Magazine [media website], in which former guards at the prison indicate that the three prisoners experienced intense interrogations in a remote area of the base just hours before the apparent suicide. According to the article, military personnel were instructed by a commanding officer that the media would be told that the deaths were suicides. The Obama administration issued a statement [Reuters report] indicating that it took the matter seriously and found no evidence of wrongdoing during its investigation. A 2008 investigation conducted by the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) [official website] concluded [JURIST report] that the cause of death was suicide.

In June, another Yemeni Guantanamo detainee was pronounced dead [JURIST report] after apparently committing suicide. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] called for a "full and transparent investigation" into the death. Military officials said that the three 2006 detainees, who hanged themselves using nooses made from sheets and clothes, had participated in hunger strikes and were among those who had been force-fed [JURIST report]. Amnesty International [advocacy website] said the deaths "are the tragic results of years of arbitrary and indefinite detention" and should serve as "an indictment on [Guantanamo's] deteriorating human rights record." In 2006, the US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] rejected a demand by Amnesty International for an independent investigation into the suicides.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced [press release] on Tuesday that 22 individuals were indicted [materials] for violating federal bribery laws in an effort to obtain foreign business contracts. An undercover operation conducted by the FBI found violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) [text], which prohibits the bribing of foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining business. The defendants believed they were dealing with an agent representing an African minister of defense, and they agreed to offer a commission in order to secure part of a $15 million military contract. The indictment also includes [Reuters report] conspiracy to commit money laundering charges through the sale of goods such as guns and armor. Several corporate executives are among those indicted, including the current and former CEOs of Protective Products of America and the VP of Sales for Smith & Wesson [corporate websites]. Smith & Wesson issued a statement [press release] following the indictment denying any knowledge of their employee's involvement and promising to cooperate with the government as the investigation proceeds.

The indictment was the largest ever under the FCPA. In August, former congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) [official profile; JURIST news archive] was convicted [JURIST report] of 11 counts of public corruption under the FCPA. In November 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] reached [JURIST report] a $30 million settlement with Chevron [corporate website] over FCPA charges in connection with the company's involvement in a scheme to exchange illegal payments to Iraqi officials under the now-defunct UN Oil-for-Food program [official website; JURIST news archive]. Also in 2007, the DOJ charged [JURIST report] three drilling companies under the FCPA for paying Nigerian officials in order to obtain expedited clearance through customs.