[JURIST] Human rights group Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Wednesday urged [press release] Cuban authorities to "revoke laws that restrict freedom of expression, assembly and association and to release all dissidents unfairly detained by the authorities." AI called on President Raul Castro [BBC profile] to invite UN experts and human rights organizations into the country to independently monitor the human rights situation. Currently, international independent human rights organizations are not permitted in the country. AI's statement also condemned vague legislation because it is "currently being interpreted in a way that infringes fundamental freedoms." For example, Article 72 [AI translation] of the Cuban Criminal Code makes "dangerousness" a jailable offense [AP report]. The statement was released as the 7th anniversary of the arrest of 75 Cuban dissidents [AP report] nears, with 53 of those arrested remaining in jail today.

Last week, the US State Department [official website] criticized Cuba for interfering with the right to privacy in its 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials; JURIST report]. In November, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] claiming that the Cuban government continued to repress dissidents and violate fundamental civil liberties of Cubans, and resorted to imposing short-term imprisonment measures to elude international critique. According to a February 2009 report by the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) [El Pais backgrounder, in Spanish], the number of political prisoners in Cuba had declined [JURIST report] from 234 in January 2008 to 205, while the number of brief detentions had increased. In January, HRW acknowledged some attempts in 2008 by the Cuban government to improve its position on human rights in its World Report 2009 [materials]. HRW decried that overall the Cuban government continues to deny its citizens their fundamental rights. In 2008, Cuba was ranked 170th in the eighth annual Worldwide Index of Press Freedom [JURIST report] issued by Reporters Without Borders (RWB) [advocacy website].

[JURIST] The State of Law Coalition led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [official website, in Arabic] on Wednesday asked the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) [official website] to recount ballots cast in the March 7 parliamentary election [JURIST news archive], alleging fraud. State of Law spokesperson Ali Al Adib claimed that the ballots were manipulated [AP report] by the manager of an electronic counting center who is allegedly linked to the rival Iraqiya bloc, led by former prime minister Iyad Allawi. The allegations of fraud come after Iraqiya showed a slight lead [Al Jazeera report] in a partial vote count released earlier this week. Allawi's coalition leads the race with seven out of 18 provinces, but the Iraqiya bloc is close behind, leading in five provinces. The IHEC said that there was no evidence [AP report] to back up the allegations. The election determines the 325 members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives [official website, in Arabic] who will then elect the prime minister and president.

The fraud allegations are the latest in a series of problems plaguing the parliamentary elections. Last month, an Iraqi appeals panel ruled [JURIST report] that 28 previously banned candidates could stand for election. The Responsibility and Justice Committee had initially ruled that some 500 banned candidates could stand for election despite allegations of ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party [BBC backgrounder]. The decision was characterized by the Iraqi government as illegal, and was reversed [JURIST reports] when the panel acknowledged that it did not have to rule on all 500 candidates at once. Last year, the Iraqi parliament approved [JURIST report] an amended version of a controversial election law after numerous delays. The new version of the law increased the number of seats in parliament from 275 to 325, with 310 of those seats allotted to Iraq's 18 provinces and the remainder reserved for Iraqis living outside the country.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit [complaint, PDF] Tuesday seeking information related to the US government's use of unmanned Predator drones. The suit, filed in the US district court for the District of Columbia, seeks to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] request [text, PDF] made in January. The ACLU alleges that the unmanned warplanes have been used by the military and CIA for killings in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. The ACLU also cites troubling reports indicating that US citizens may be targeted and killed by Predator drones. The FOIA request asks "when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized," as well as for information related to civilian casualties. Director of the ACLU National Security Project Jameel Jaffer emphasized [press release] the importance of the information requested:

The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions - not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well. ... These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] ruled [judgment text; press release] Wednesday that the constitution does not prevent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website; BBC profile] from replacing retiring Chief Justice Reynato Puno prior to the May presidential elections. The court found [Manila Bulletin report] that the constitutional provisions that prevent the president from appointing officials immediately before or after elections do not apply to the Supreme Court or to the judiciary in general. The court found:

The lack of any appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the independence of the Judiciary, because the Chief Justice is the head of the entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice performs functions absolutely significant to the life of the nation. With the entire Supreme Court being the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Tribunal. There being no obstacle to the appointment of the next Chief Justice, aside from its being mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be appointed by the next President.

[JURIST] The UK High Court ruled [judgment text] Wednesday that the Catholic social services agency Catholic Care [agency website] may refuse to consider same-sex couples as candidates for adoption, pending a review of their policy by the UK Charity Commission. The case revolved around interpretation of Regulation 18 of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007 [materials]. That legislation forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, except for charities, which, under Regulation 18, can refuse to assist individuals as long as they are acting as a "charitable instrument" and the restriction, "is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument." Based on the Chancery Division's reading of that regulation, Catholic Care will be permitted to continue its adoption practices [Guardian report] until the Charity Commission makes a ruling based on the court's interpretation of Regulation 18. In remitting the case for that ruling, Justice Briggs wrote:

On my interpretation of Regulation 18, the Commission is the body charged by Parliament with the task of carrying out that analysis. ... I have no reason to suppose that, directed as to the true interpretation of Regulation 18, the Charity Commission will not properly be able to carry out that analysis, either on the facts thus far proved, or upon the basis of such further evidence as it may consider necessary and appropriate to take into account.

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said [transcript; UN News Centre report] on Tuesday that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] will continue to operate beyond its originally planned end date at the end of this year. Ban estimated that it will be necessary for the court to remain open until 2013. Part of the reason for the extension is that two of the primary suspects remain at large. Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic [case materials; JURIST news archive] and political leader Goran Hadzic [case materials] both face a significant number of charges. Ban said:

When these Special Tribunals were established, they were established for a temporary purpose with a certain date fixed. ... There is some broad agreement now that ICTY may need at least a few more years, to 2013 or so. Our hope is that all these pending cases should be expedited. If and when these two fugitives are arrested, then we will have to discuss again how we can adjust, or we can leave it to other mechanisms - this was discussed already between the ICTY and the Security Council. At this time, since we do not have any clear idea when these two fugitives would be arrested, with the help of those countries concerned, then they should live up to their schedules according to exit strategies.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] on Tuesday defended his intention to try suspected terrorists, including accused 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC Profile; JURIST news archive] in civilian criminal court. Holder faced numerous questions on the issue while testifying [video; prepared testimony, PDF] before a House Appropriations [official website] subcommittee, repeatedly defending the decision to use federal courts, as opposed to military commissions [JURIST news archive]. Holder drew distinctions between individuals to be tried in each venue based on the target of the terrorist act, the evidentiary rules available in each forum, and the national security considerations stemming from each method. Holder then defended the competency of judges in civilian courts in dealing with disruptive defendants, who would attempt to use their trial as a podium for their views. In discussing the possible safety of communities where the trials may be held, Holder said, "[l]ook at history, look at the way in which these cases have been conducted safely, without incident to communities and neighborhoods that surround the courthouses where these cases have been held," specifically citing the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui [JURIST news archive]. In terms of a timeline for when the final decision on the venue for these trials might be made, Holder indicated that a decision is still "weeks away."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], a group that has been persistent in its advocacy of civilian trials for 9/11 suspects, expressed support [press release] for Holder's decision. Earlier this month, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama [JURIST report] to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. That release came just days after reports that White House advisers are considering recommending [JURIST report] that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system. Holder announced in November that Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court [JURIST report] in Manhattan, drawing intense criticism. Holder has previously defended his decision [JURIST report] to charge suspected terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [JURIST news archive], the so-called Christmas Day bomber, in US federal court.

[JURIST] The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website] on Tuesday sent [press release, PDF] to Congress its National Broadband Plan [materials], which seeks to enact regulations to update the communications infrastructure in the US and to make broadband service available to millions of Americans. The plan is mandated by provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) [materials]. Notable goals of the plan include providing 100 million households with affordable 100-megabits-per-second Internet service, making 500 megahertz of wireless spectrum available for licensed and unlicensed use by mobile applications, and ensuring that all children are literate in digital technology by the time they leave high school. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski [official profile] commented [statement, PDF] on why the project is so important:

First, because broadband is essential to our global competitiveness - essential to job creation in a digital economy, to ongoing investment in vital 21st century infrastructure, and to our ability to lead the world in innovation.

Second, because broadband is essential for opportunity in America - for all Americans, from all communities and backgrounds, living in rural towns, inner cities, or in between.

And, third, because broadband is essential to solving so many of the challenges facing our nation - including education, health care, energy and public safety, each of which is specifically mentioned in the Congressional directive.

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] said Wednesday that he would not delay his plan [statement text] to set up a UN panel to investigate allegations of human rights violations during the Sri Lankan civil war [JURIST news archive]. Ban made the statement during a press conference in response to a question about a letter [Lankapuvath report] from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) [BBC backgrounder] to the secretary-general last week. Ban responded that the letter, which challenged the UN's authority to form the panel, was a misunderstanding, and he made clear his intention to form the panel:

[T]his panel will report to me directly and not to any other body. It is well within my power, I believe. I am convinced that it is well within my power as Secretary-General of the United Nations to ask such a body to furnish me with their advice of this nature. This does not in any way infringe on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.