[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Colombia [official website, in Spanish] voted 7-2 Friday to strike down as unconstitutional [text, in Spanish] a law that would have allowed a referendum to amend the Colombian Constitution [text in Spanish] to enable current President Alvaro Uribe [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] to run for a third term. The court's decision was based on grave violations of principles of democratic participation and transparency that the court said took place during the campaign for the law. Among the irregularities cited by the court were flagrant excesses in campaign finance donations and the improper delegation of campaign funding to a civil organization that spent up to six times more than the statutory limit imposed by the National Electoral Council [official website, in Spanish]. Irregularities in the legislative process included a discrepancy between the text of the law that would have been voted on and the version approved by the Colombian Congress [official website], deficient public notice on the legislative vote, and voting rendered inappropriate due to legislators changing their political affiliation to approve the law. The decision may not be appealed. Uribe has enjoyed widespread support in recent polls, but a range of civic groups have welcomed [PDA press release, in Spanish; ColombiaNews video report] the court's decision.

In September, the Colombian House of Representatives voted to approve [JURIST report] the bill [text, PPS; in Spanish]. The Colombian Senate [official website] had approved [press release, in Spanish; JURIST report] a similar proposal in May. Uribe was elected to a second term in 2006 after a similar referendum, approved by Congress [NYT report] in December 2004 and the Constitutional Court [JURIST report] in October 2005, lifted the original one-term limit. In June 2008, the Colombian Supreme Court ruled [AP report] that a legal inquiry should be held into the election after it found that a legislator had been bribed to help push through the constitutional changes. Uribe had called [JURIST report] for the referendum to decide on the election in response to the high court's ruling.

[JURIST] Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy [party profile; JURIST news archive] was accused in a new lawsuit [Bangkok Post report] filed Friday in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court by the Cambodian government [official website] of forging and then disseminating a false map of the Cambodia-Vietnam border on his political party's website. The map [document, PDF] posted on the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) website shows an area along the border of the two countries in which Rainsy alleges the Vietnamese government tampered with four border posts, placing them further into Cambodian territory than UN, US Army, Google, and French colonial maps specify. If convicted, Rainsy could be sentenced to 15 years in prison for falsifying documents and an additional three years for posting those documents publicly. Earlier this month, Cambodian authorities admonished Google [Bloomberg report] for maps pertaining to another disputed border area. Rainsy and his political party maintain that the current Cambodian government have enabled Vietnam to encroach on Cambodian territory.

In January, Rainsy and two villagers were convicted [RFA report; JURIST report] in absentia of inciting racial discrimination and intentionally destroying posts demarcating the border between Cambodia and Vietnam last October. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called [press release] the closed-door trial of Sam Rainsy and the two villagers a "farce," saying the ruling demonstrates the government's control over the country's judiciary. In 2006, Rainsy received a royal pardon for a 2005 defamation conviction. He is currently self-exiled in France, but remains actively involved [press release] in Cambodian affairs.

[JURIST] The United Nations General Assembly [official website] voted [press release] Friday to give the Israelis and Palestinians additional time to finish their separate investigations into alleged human rights violations that took place during the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza [JURIST news archive]. The measure, which gives the two parties five additional months, was opposed by Israel and the US. While permanent Palestinian observer to the UN Riyad Mansour [UN backgrounder] called the resolution a "victory" [UN press release], Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev [Ha'aretz profile] questioned [Ha'aretz report] the impartiality of the Palestinian investigation as it would be carried out by Hamas. Meanwhile, US Ambassador Alejandro Wolff [official profile] voted against [press release] the measure because Israel had already submitted a detailed report to the General Assembly, and because he said the resolution was inherently biased against Israel. He claimed the original UN fact-finding report on the Gaza conflict, the Goldstone report [JURIST news archive], was similarly biased.

Earlier this month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said it was unclear [JURIST report] if Israel and the Palestinians had fully met UN demands to investigate war crimes that may have taken place during the Gaza conflict. In November 2009, the UN had originally adopted a resolution [JURIST report] giving the two parties three months to complete an independent investigation. According to the Goldstone report, which was officially endorsed [JURIST report] by the UN in October, both Israel and Hamas committed [JURIST report] human rights violations during the Gaza conflict. Both Israel and the US criticized [DOS briefing] the report. An internal Israel military investigation found that no war crimes had been committed [JURIST report] during the conflict, but Israel recently disciplined [JURIST report] two high-ranking officers for firing shells into a populated area of the Gaza strip.

[JURIST] US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official profile] said at a hearing Friday that he was prepared to subpoena [Harper's report] the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] if it did not turn over missing e-mail records of former Bush administration lawyers John Yoo [academic profile; JURIST news archive] and Patrick Philbin [firm profile] dealing with the so-called "torture memos" [JURIST news archive] justifying the use of harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects. Leahy urged [press release] that a "true accounting and a comprehensive review" be conducted to determine "how the United States government came to authorize torture." He said that a recently concluded DOJ investigation was limited to whether the lawyers violated "legal profession rules," and he was interested in the role that senior Bush administration officials had played in writing legal justifications for interrogation methods that critics have called torture. He observed:

The role of the White House in the politicization of the OLC and in ensuring that these opinions delivered the legal immunity they were looking for has yet to be fully explored. My sense is that such a review would reveal the same untoward and corrupting influence we found when we investigated the purging of United States Attorneys for political purposes.

[JURIST] Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond [official website] unveiled a proposal [consultation paper, PDF; press release] Thursday that, if passed, would allow Scottish voters to choose whether to expand the country's autonomy. The draft referendum contains two ballot papers. One version of the first question [text] asks whether Scotland should cut ties with the UK in most areas excluding foreign affairs, defense, monetary policy, and the currency. Another version of the first question [text] would reduce reliance on the UK in financial areas, allowing Scotland to, among other things, impose an income tax. The second ballot paper [text] goes farther, asking whether Scotland should become an independent state with the possibility of membership in the European Union, while retaining the queen as the head of state. In the foreword to the Bill Consultation Paper, Salmond wrote:

I believe that the future prosperity and development of Scotland is best served by Scotland becoming independent. The case for an independent Scotland is stronger and more urgent following recent economic events. It is exactly the flexibility that is offered by independence that Scotland needs if it is to deal most effectively with such challenges in the future. But I recognise that there are also those who argue that the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament should be extended in more limited ways.