[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Tuesday in two cases. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether a federal law [18 USC § 2339B(a)(1)] that prohibits providing material support to terrorism violates the First Amendment. The challenge was filed by the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) [advocacy website] on behalf on several groups that wanted to support the Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archives], both of which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the US government. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] portions of the "material support" law and upheld others in 2007, leading both the US government and HLP to appeal. Several rights groups have filed briefs [JURIST report] in support of HLP's position. At Tuesday's session, counsel for HLP argued that the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech, while US Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued that is a "vital weapon" for combating terrorism. Several justices appeared to express concern that the law was overly restrictive.

In United States v. O'Brien and Burgess [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether mandatory minimum sentencing enhancement for the use of a machine gun in a federal crime is an element of the underlying offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or if it is to be determined by a judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that such a determination should be made by a jury, relying on statutory interpretation and creating a circuit split. Counsel for the petitioner, the US government, argued that the language of the statute requires a judge to make the determination. Counsel for the respondents argued that such a result in foreclosed by the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation jurisprudence.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] ruled Tuesday that current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website; BBC profile] is eligible to run for the senate after her presidential term expires. The Supreme Court denied a petition [Manila Times report] brought by Rep. Risa Hontiveros [official website] of the Akbayan [party website] party-list, which sought to disqualify Arroyo from running for the senate, challenging the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) [official website]. The petition alleged that Arroyo's office gives her an unfair advantage and criticized [press release] her for earmarking projects in the district in which she is running. Tuesday's decision comes after the court ruled [judgment text] Monday that a law requiring appointed officials to resign when they declare their candidacy for elected office is constitutional, but that the ruling does not affect elected officials because, "by the very nature of their office, [they] engage in partisan political activities almost all year round, even outside of the campaign period. The court overruled a December decision [judgment text] that held that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Philippine Constitution because it had separate rules for elected and appointed officials. A court spokesperson said [Manila Bulletin report] Tuesday that Monday's decision will not effect Arroyo's candidacy because she is an elected official.

Earlier this month, the Philippine Department of Justice (PDOJ) [official website] charged 197 people with murder [JURIST report] in connection with the November massacre in the semi-autonomous Maguindanao province that left 57 dead. Among those charged is Andal Ampatuan Sr., a former political ally to Arroyo, head of a Muslim clan, and former governor of Maguindanao province. Following the killings, Arroyo imposed martial law [JURIST report] and suspended habeas corpus in the province. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The Sri Lankas Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition [JURIST report] to release opposition presidential candidate and former general Sarath Fonseka [BBC profile]. The Court did, however, approve requests [BBC report] to ensure Fonseka's safety and to allow him greater access to lawyers, family, and colleagues. Fonseka has been in prison since February 8, when the Sri Lankan Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) announced [press release; JURIST report] that he was being held "in connection with certain fraudulent acts and other military offences," but charges have yet to be filed [AFP report]. Incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official website, in Sinhala] says Fonseka was planning a coup [BBC report]. Human Rights groups have expressed concern [JURIST report] that trying Fonseka in a military court, as the Sri Lankan government has advocated, will deprive the former general of "due process." The next hearing on Fonseka's case is scheduled for April 26.

Two weeks ago, Rajapaksa dissolved [JURIST report] Parliament [official website] and called for early parliamentary elections. It is believed that Rajapaksa is trying to harness momentum from the presidential election in January, in which he was re-elected, to gain more seats in parliament for his political party, Freedom Alliance. Earlier this month, 37 people, most of them military officers, were arrested in connection to an alleged assassination attempt against Rajapaksa. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court ruled this month that Rajapaksa's second term [JURIST report] will begin in November. The apparent victor in January's elections, Rajapaksa defeated Fonseka by an official margin of 18 points, winning re-election to a second term in office. Fonseka has disputed [Al Jazeera report] the results, saying violence and vote-counting irregularities invalidated the outcome.

[JURIST] The Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology [official website, in Chinese] has issued new regulations tightening restrictions on Internet use by requiring citizens operating websites to submit identity cards and meet with regulators before their sites can be registered. The Ministry maintains that the restrictions [BBC News report], made public Monday, are needed to regulate pornographic websites, which are banned in China, but Internet activists believe that the measures are just another step to tighten government control over Internet use. China froze registration [Register report] of new individual websites without business licenses in December, claiming that appropriate steps were not being taken to prevent the creation of pornographic sites. The ministry says that the December ban will be lifted with the enactment of the new registration policies. The increased restrictions have caused many Internet users to register their websites overseas in order to avoid government regulation.

The new policies come as the Chinese government continues negotiations with Google regarding the Internet company's January threat to discontinue operations in China [JURIST report] due to the country's overarching Internet censorship. Google's action was in response to a cyber attack on its Gmail service in December, which targeted the e-mail accounts of human rights activists in China and drew the ire of rights groups around the world. Google indicated that it would work with the Chinese government to find a way to allow an, "unfiltered search engine within the law as well," but also noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, it may close its offices there and shut down its Google.cn website. China responded [JURIST report] by reiterating its commitment to open Internet, but stressed that international Internet companies must follow Chinese law. A week later, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the threat [JURIST report] by Google in a speech promoting Internet freedom and criticizing censorship, declaring that China "risk[s] walling themselves off from the progress of the next century." Chinese Foreign Ministry [official website, in Chinese] spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu criticized Clinton for her remarks stating that they were harmful to bilateral relations between the US and China.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in Florida v. Powell [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona [opinion text] are satisfied by advice that a suspect has "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers'] questions," and that he can invoke this right "at any time ... during th[e] interview." The trial court overruled the defense lawyer's objection, holding that the warning was sufficient, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed [opinion, PDF], finding the warning to be misleading enough to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he or she could only consult with an attorney before questioning. In reversing the decision below, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are exemplary. They provide, in relevant part: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning." This advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda's requirements. Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message.

[JURIST] Nigerien rights group, the United Front for the Safeguard of Democratic Assets (Fusad), called Tuesday for the prosecution of ousted president Mamadou Tandja [BBC profile] on treason charges. Fusad, which is allied with the opposition party that led last week's coup [JURIST report], claims that Tandja is guilty of corruption violating the constitution [AFP report], and alleges that he gave out contracts to foreign oil and uranium firms. Late Monday, the military junta, which is calling itself the Supreme Council for Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), announced [SAPA report] over state radio that Major Salou Djibo [Xinhua profile] will act as Niger's new head of state. As interim president, Dijbo will have the power to appoint the prime minister and remove ministers. The junta also announced the creation of a task force to draft a new constitution and electoral laws as well as a constitutional committee and a court to replace those that were dissolved [JURIST report] following last week's coup. The junta has given no time-frame for the transition to civilian rule, but the CSRD has promised to turn Niger into a democracy. President Seini Oumarou of the former ruling party, the National Movement for Society and Development (MNSD) has condemned the coup [VOA report], as Tandja and his prime minister remain under house arrest.

Last week's coup, which left at least three Nigerien soldiers dead, comes six months after a referendum was passed abolishing presidential term limits [JURIST reports] and allowing Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger's opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution's adoption. In September, members of the opposition parties said that police had detained 30 former opposition lawmakers [JURIST report], allegedly at the behest of Tandja. The 30 former members of parliament were arrested on charges of embezzlement [AFP report], but were likely being targeted for their dissidence, as they refused to recognize Tandja's expansion of powers. One week later, leader of the opposition Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism (PNDS) [party website, in French], Mahamadou Issoufou, was charged with financial crimes [JURIST report]. The PNDS claimed the corruption charges were politically motivated [BBC report]. Niger [CIA World Factbook profile], which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since its founding in 1960.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously in Hertz Corp. v. Friend [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction [USCourts backgrounder], a corporation's principal place of business shall be determined by the "nerve center" test. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's application of the "place of operations" test, which looks to the location of the corporation's business activities and only considers its "nerve center" if the activities do not substantially predominate in any one state. In reversing the decision below, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court:

The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." We seek here to resolve different interpretations that the Circuits have given this phrase. In doing so, we place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a jurisdictional statute to remain as simple as possible. And we conclude that the phrase "principal place of business" refers to the place where the corporation's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities. Lower federal courts have often metaphorically called that place the corporation's "nerve center."

[JURIST] The French branch of the Arab Women's Solidarity Association (AWSA) [advocacy website] initiated proceedings [AFP report, in French] Sunday against the participation of a 'veiled' candidate in the upcoming French regional elections, following the dismissal of its initial legal action. The candidate, Ilham Moussaid, represents the New Anticapitalist Party [party website, in French], a radical left-wing party, in the southeast region of France, known as the Paca region. The administrative court of Marseilles rejected a demand to ban Moussaid last week, holding that inasmuch as the authorities had not yet come to a decision there could not be a violation of fundamental freedoms at that stage. The AWSA, along with a taxpayer of the Paca region, have demanded that the administrative court of Marseilles annul that decision on the grounds that it represents a violation of fundamental freedoms, namely the prevalent value of secularity and the freedom of conscience. A hearing was set to take place on Tuesday.

The announcement [France 24 report] of Moussaid's candidacy earlier this month received nationwide media attention, given the recent proposal by a parliamentary commission to ban the burqa [JURIST report]. Since 2004, French law [text, in French] has prohibited the wearing of a headscarf, along with other religious symbols, in schools, a ban that the parliamentary commission proposed to extend to all public institutions. 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.

[JURIST] UK rights group Reprieve [advocacy website] on Tuesday initiated legal action [text, PDF] against the UK government for its alleged use of torture policies overseas. Reprieve argues that the government's refusal to make such policies public [press release] suggests that the protocol is illegal and possibly allows torture. Reprieve will challenge the legality of the government's policies and will present information provided by an intelligence officer during cross examination [text, PDF] that implicated high-ranking officials in the promotion of abusive interrogations. The rights group criticized the government's silence on the issue and described the legal action:

Reprieve has therefore been forced to bring this litigation. Ten diverse examples of complicity are used to support the action: from British agents driving a prisoner around in a mobile interrogation unit in Iraq in the midst of his cycle of torture, to urging prisoners to cooperate with their abusers, to threats of rendition, to knowingly feeding questions to prisoners who were being mistreated.

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] on Monday appointed [press release] US lawyer Brenda Hollis as the prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) [official website]. Hollis was appointed in consultation with the government of Sierra Leone, and the appointment was effective as of February 16. Prior to her appointment, Hollis was leading the prosecution against former Liberian president Charles Taylor [JURIST news archive]. Hollis previously worked in the office of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [official websites]. Hollis succeeds Stephen Rapp [official profile], who resigned last year after US President Barack Obama nominated [JURIST report] him as the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues.

In November, the SCSL handed over its detention facility [JURIST report] to the Sierra Leone Prison Service in a monumental step towards the court's resolution. In October, eight men judged guilty of war crimes by the court were transferred [JURIST report] to Rwanda to serve out their terms. Three of the men, leaders of the Revolutionary United Front [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], had their appeals rejected [JURIST report] in October, and are now serving sentences between 15 and 25 years. With these final sentences, the SCSL has largely fulfilled its purpose and will continue taking steps to close down [BBC report]. The only remaining indictee of the SCSL is Taylor. His trial, which could take up to four years [JURIST report], is being held in The Hague due to security concerns. The SCSL was created in a joint endeavor by the government of Sierra Leone and the UN to provide a forum to try those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law, committed in Sierra Leone.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] on Monday praised the role [press release] of the civilian criminal justice system in obtaining a guilty plea from suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi. Zazi pleaded guilty [press release; JURIST report] on Monday to three criminal charges of conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in the US and to commit murder in a foreign country, as well as of providing material support for al Qaeda. Holder indicated [AP report] that opposition to using civilian courts to try terror suspects was based on politics rather than facts. He also said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] would continue using civilian courts as a tool for trying terrorists, stating:

We are at war against a dangerous, intelligent and adaptable enemy, and we must use every weapon available to win that war. In this case, as it has in so many other cases, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military. We will continue to use it to protect the American people from terrorism.

As I have stated on other occasions, the criminal justice system also contains powerful incentives to induce pleas that yield long sentences and gain intelligence that can be used in the fight against Al Qaeda. We will use all available tools whenever possible against suspected terrorists.

[JURIST] Reconciliation in Liberia hinges on the development of its national security and its legal institutions, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] emphasized [UN News Centre report] in a new progress report [text, PDF] released Monday. The UN report recognizes that the final report [materials] of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) [official website] and its recommendations have proven to be deeply divisive, with "[t]he public debate focused on whether the leaders of the warring factions and others the Commission had found to be responsible for atrocities should be prosecuted." The report also asserts that "[t]he lack of public confidence in the justice system [has] continued to fuel incidents of mob violence." Gaps in the implementation of Liberia's national security strategy, which includes a bill that has not yet been presented in the legislature, "[impede] effective security and intelligence coordination and [create] a major obstacle to the establishment of the overall security architecture," according to the report. Limitations in human capacity and infrastructure pose challenges to the law sector as well as to the overall consolidation of state authority. Development in these areas will affect the length of the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) [official website], which was extended to September 30, 2010.

The TRC released its final consolidated report in December 2009. Among its recommendations is a 30-year ban from holding office [JURIST report] for those who supported Liberia's 1997-2003 civil conflict, which could affect prominent leaders such as current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf [BBC profile]. The report also contains a list of "Most Notorious Predators" and a list of perpetrators of economic crimes, which includes the head of the legal association for the defense of former president Charles Taylor [JURIST news archive]. Human rights organizations such as the Liberia Human Rights Campaign [advocacy website] have urged that the implementation of the TRC recommendations is "imperative." Liberia's civil war [UNMIL backgrounder; BBC backgrounder] left nearly 250,000 civilians dead and displaced more than 850,000. Taylor is currently on trial [case materials] before the Special Court for Sierra Leone [official website] for war crimes stemming from a "campaign to terrorize the civilian population" of Sierra Leone.

[JURIST] Suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty [press release] Monday to three criminal charges of conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in the US and to commit murder in a foreign country, as well as providing material support for al Qaeda. At Monday's hearing in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website], Zazi acknowledged [transcript] the three counts of superseding information for which he now faces up to life in prison for two of the counts, and 15 years in prison for the third. Zazi's sentencing is scheduled for June.

Zazi is a native of Afghanistan who was arrested [BBC report] by FBI agents in Colorado last fall. He was originally charged with making false statements to the FBI. In September, Zazi was indicted [indictment, PDF; JURIST report] and pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charge of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. At the time, prosecutors from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] said that they had significant information to use against Zazi, while his lawyer countered that the prosecution could not prove Zazi's guilt unless they identified the other conspirators. Zazi's father was released [NYT report] last week on bail, having been charged with conspiring to destroy evidence of his son's activities. Two other men, Adis Medunjanin [JURIST report] and Zarein Ahmedzay, have been charged with conspiring to commit murder in a foreign country and of receiving military training from al Qaeda in connection with the plot.