[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Tuesday in Dolan v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether a district court may enter a restitution order beyond the time limit prescribed in 18 USC § 3664(d)(5) [text]. The petitioner, Brian Dolan, attacked a hitchhiker and was ordered to pay restitution to his victim. He argued that the court's restitution order came after the deadline imposed by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that "a tardy restitution order is not an invalid one." Counsel for Dolan argued Tuesday that, "[o]nce that 90-day period has run ... the district court loses the authority to impose restitution." Counsel for the United States argued that the court may impose restitution after the 90-day period in certain circumstances.

[JURIST] Russia's Constitutional Court [official website, in Russian] on Monday upheld [judgment text, in Russian] the practice of trying terrorism cases in the absence of juries. Several Russian citizens had challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the country's Criminal Procedure Code, which provided that criminal cases involving crimes under articles 205 (terrorist act), 278 (violent seizure of power or forcible retention of power) and 279 (armed rebellion) are not considered with the participation of a jury, but rather by three judges. The petitioners argued that this practice violates the right to trial by jury, which is envisaged in Russia's Constitution [text, in Russian]. They also cited Article 55 of the Constitution, under which the country is barred from passing laws that abrogate or derogate from human rights. The Constitutional Court disagreed, finding that the constitution only guarantees jury trials in cases where the defendants could be sentenced to death. In other situations, the court said the right to trial by jury is defined by federal legislation. The court emphasized the impartiality and professionalism of the judges in Russia tasked with trying terrorism cases, noting that this would ensure fair trials for terrorism suspects.

Russia has been tightening its anti-terrorism and other national security legislation recent years, leading to concerns that some of the reforms infringe on human rights. The provision banning jury trials for terrorism suspects was approved [JURIST report] by Russian Dmitry President Medvedev [official website] at the beginning of 2009. Also last year, a spokesperson for Medvedev announced [JURIST report] that his administration would modify a legislative proposal that would change the definition of treason, state secrets, and espionage. Last month, Medvedev proposed amending the country's terrorism legislation in the wake of twin suicide bombing attacks [Moscow Times report] on Moscow subway stations. Literature including Mein Kampf and 34 religious books [JURIST reprots] related to the Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned recently under the country's extremism laws.

[JURIST] The Chief Legal Counsel [official website] to the UN, Under-Secretary-General Patricia O'Brien [official profile, PDF], and Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An said Monday that the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] needs financial support from the international community. In a joint statement [text; UN News Centre report], O'Brien and Sok expressed concern about the financial situation of the UN-backed tribunal charged with trying alleged Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] war criminals, but also emphasized the great success that the tribunal has had:

The ECCC has confirmed its ability to conduct complex international criminal trials to international standards, and is living up to the hope for it to be a model court. The proceedings have attracted unprecedented interest and support, as witnessed by the fact that over 30,000 Cambodians have attended the court proceedings since its inception.

[JURIST] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] in The Hague ruled [judgment, PDF; case materials] Tuesday that Uruguay may continue operating a pulp mill on the River Uruguay despite breaching its treaty obligations to Argentina. The ICJ found that Uruguay did not breach its substantive obligation [press release, PDF] to Argentina to protect the environment under the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay [text, PDF] by planning to construct two pulp mills. The court did find that Uruguay had breached its procedural duties laid out in the statute by not cooperating with Argentina and the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (CARU) during the development phase and prior to the construction of the Orion (Botnia) pulp mill, but concluded that shutting down the plant or ordering damages would not be an appropriate remedy. The ruling was criticized by environmental activists [Reuters report] but welcomed by diplomats from both Argentina and Uruguay who hoped it would help repair relations between the two countries.

The hearings for the treaty dispute began [JURIST report] in September. Argentina claimed that pollutants from the plant were causing extreme harm [El Pais report, in Spanish] to the river and surrounding environment and that Uruguay failed to obtain Argentina's approval before starting the project. In 2007, the ICJ refused [JURIST report] to order Argentina to prevent demonstrators protesting the plant from blocking traffic on roads and bridges into the country from Uruguay. In 2006, the ICJ denied [JURIST report] Argentina's request that Uruguay be ordered to stop construction on the plants.

[JURIST] The Oklahoma State Senate [official website] voted to approve five anti-abortion bills on Monday, sending three to Governor Brad Henry [official website] for his approval and returning two to the Oklahoma State House of Representatives [official website]. The first bill [HB 2526 text, RTF] would prevent "wrongful life" lawsuits in which parents seek damages for a child born with a birth defect because the mother was unable to obtain an abortion. The second bill [HB 2780 text, RTF] would require doctors to conduct a vaginal ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion while displaying and explaining the images. The third bill [HB 3075 text, RTF] would require any facility conducting abortions to post a sign stating that it is against the law to be forced to have an abortion. Pending House approval, two additional bills would require a woman to answer 38 questions [HB 3284 text, RTF], including why she is seeking an abortion, and prohibit state health plans from covering elective abortions [HB 3290 text, RTF]. Senate Republican Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee [official website] praised the bills [press release] saying, "Oklahomans have consistently voted and called for measures like these, and today we have held true to Oklahoma values." If approved by Henry, the bills would give Oklahoma the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Earlier this month, Henry signed three anti-abortion bills into law [JURIST report], prohibiting abortions performed because of the gender of the fetus, protecting medical employees who refuse to participate in procedures such as abortion based on religious beliefs, and regulating a chemical used in abortion procedures. The measures signed by the governor and the provisions of the bills passed Monday were previously included in a larger state law struck down [JURIST report] by the Oklahoma Supreme Court [official website] last month for violating the Oklahoma Constitution [text], which requires legislation to be limited to one subject. In February, an Oklahoma state court ruled [JURIST report] that a different state law [HB 1595, PDF], making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender of a fetus and requiring numerous reporting requirements, also violated the state constitution's single subject requirement. The Center for Reproductive Rights [advocacy website], which initially filed lawsuits against the bills, has indicated that it will challenge the constitutionality of the separated bills. Staff Attorney Stephanie Toti criticized the laws [JURIST comment], arguing that "they violate a myriad of constitutional principles, from freedom of speech to due process to equal protection of the law."

[JURIST] Two political parties in eastern Sudan on Tuesday accused the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) [party website] of using voter fraud and intimidation in gaining electoral victories in their region of the country during last week's national elections. Representatives of the Beja Congress party and the Democratic Congress for East Sudan have separately accused members of the NCP [Reuters report] of emptying of ballot boxes and compromising ballots in an effort to secure victory for their party. The Beja Congress also contend that fraud is indicated by the fact their party won only one seat on a state assembly and no seats at the national level. Reports from one electoral area have the NCP candidate winning with close to 18,000 votes compared to 839 for the eastern party candidate. Official results of the election have not yet been released by the National Election Commission [official website], but indicators point to a strong national win by the NCP. Also on Tuesday, a representative of the US State Department [official website] commented [transcript] on the elections, stating that they were not "free and fair" and that they did not meet international standards. It is expected that President Omar al-Bashir [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] will win re-election when the results are announced.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] currently has an arrest warrant against al-Bashir charging him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC is considering whether to add an additional charge of genocide to the warrant after overturning a March 2009 decision [JURIST reports] by the Pre-Trial Chamber not to prosecute on the charge. The warrant has been controversial [JURIST news archive], with Egypt, Sudan, the African Union [JURIST reports] and others calling for the proceedings against al-Bashir to be delayed, and African Union leaders agreeing [JURIST report] not to cooperate with the ruling. Al-Bashir is accused of systematically targeting and purging the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, three Arabic-speaking ethnic groups, under the pretext of counterinsurgency since 2003.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 8-1 in United States v. Stevens [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a federal law [18 USC § 48 text] banning depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the law illegally restricts speech, overturning the conviction of Robert Stevens, who was prosecuted for selling videos depicting dog fights. In upholding the opinion below, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the statute is, "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment." Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Instead of applying the doctrine of overbreadth, Alito, "would vacate the decision below and instruct the Court of Appeals on remand to decide whether the videos that respondent sold are constitutionally protected."

The statute establishes a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly "creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty," if done "for commercial gain" in interstate or foreign commerce. It was originally intended to ban "crush videos," which feature small animals being tortured and killed. Stevens was charged under the statute for selling videos of dog fights. Dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

[JURIST] The Arizona Senate approved a bill [SB 1070 materials] on Monday that would establish one of the strictest illegal immigration [JURIST news archive] policies in the nation, requiring individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants to provide proof of their legal status. The bill proposes giving the police permission to determine the immigration status of any individual who arouses reasonable suspicion, criminalizing the hiring of illegal immigrants for day labor, and allowing citizens to sue the local government if they believe the policy is not being used properly. Proponents of the bill argue that the new law would decrease illegal immigration [Reuters report] in the state, which borders Mexico. However, the bill has also been heavily criticized [press release] by Arizona Democrats, as well as immigrant rights groups who say the proposed measures could lead to racial profiling [LAT report]. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official profile] has five days to decide whether to veto or sign the bill into law.

A week after the Arizona House approved [JURIST report] the bill, US Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) [official profiles] supported the bill and announced on Monday their proposal for additional federal controls on illegal immigration [press release], such as an increased National Guard presence and a 700-mile-long fence along the Arizona-Mexico border. In 2008, Arizona voters defeated a ballot measure [JURIST report] dealing with illegal immigrants. The initiative would have revoked the business licenses of employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and would have strengthened penalties for identity theft. More illegal immigrants enter the US through Arizona's border than through any other state, and citizens have expressed frustration with the federal government's failure to prevent illegal immigration.

[JURIST] Two Blackwater [JURIST news archive] contractors working for the US Department of Defense [official website] will not face the death penalty for the alleged May 2009 shooting of two Afghans at an intersection in Kabul. Justin Cannon of Corpus Christi and Christopher Drotleff of Virginia Beach, were arrested in January and charged [JURIST report] with 13 counts related to the shooting, including second-degree murder, attempted murder, and weapons charges. Federal prosecutors told a district court judge in a hearing on Monday that they will not seek the death penalty [Reuters report]. However, if convicted, the men could still face life in prison. The men have pleaded not guilty, and maintain that they fired at the vehicle in self defense, as it sped toward them. The trial is set for September 14.

Last week, a federal grand jury indicted [press release] five former Blackwater executives on charges [JURIST report] of weapons violations and lying to criminal investigators. In February, the Iraqi government ordered approximately 250 former Blackwater employees to leave Iraq [JURIST report]. The government was reacting to a US federal court's December decision to dismiss charges against five former Blackwater employees accused of killing 17 innocent Iraqi civilians [JURIST reports] in 2007 because information against the defendants was obtained unconstitutionally. Earlier that month, the New York Times reported that the US Department of Justice [official website] is investigating [JURIST report] Blackwater, now known as Xe, to determine whether the company bribed the Iraqi government to allow Blackwater to continue operating in Iraq following the 2007 shootings. Blackwater ceased operations in Baghdad [JURIST report] in May 2009 when its security contracts for the protection of US diplomats expired.

[JURIST] Milan judges presiding over the tax fraud trial of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] suspended the trial Monday while consulting [ASCA report, in Italian] with a Constitutional Court [official website] on the legitimacy of a new law that Berlusconi has invoked to postpone criminal proceedings against him for 18 months. The case is the second to be suspended this month, with the corruption trial postponed [AFP report] last Friday. The law in question was passed [JURIST report] in March and allows cabinet officials to postpone criminal proceedings against them for up to 18 months if the charges constitute a "legitimate impediment" to performing public duties. The judges are questioning [ANSA report, in Italian] whether the new law violates the Italian Constitution [text] because it improperly creates a new faculty for cabinet members through a law rather than by constitutional amendment, and because it alters the equality of citizens under the law. Berlusconi maintains that the proceedings are politically motivated.

Earlier this month, Italian prosecutors sought to indict [JURIST report] Berlusconi on additional fraud and embezzlement charges [JURIST report] involving his media company Mediatrade, despite a new law granting the executive temporary immunity. In January, hundreds of Italy's judges walked out of their courtrooms to protest the passage of a law that placed strict time limits [JURIST reports] on the trial and appeals process. The law was criticized for being tailored for Berlusconi's benefit.

[JURIST] The Indonesian Constitutional Court [official website, in Bahasa] voted 8-1 Monday to uphold [judgment, PDF, in Bahasa; press release, in Bahasa] a controversial anti-blasphemy law enacted in 1965 by the first Indonesian president. The court rejected the legal challenge raised by a coalition of human rights groups and social activists supporting [NYT report] the Wahid Organization, a civil organization that advocates for religious pluralism in Indonesia. Critics of the law, titled Presidential Decree for the Prevention of Blasphemy and the Desecration of Religions, argued that it is used to discriminate against minorities and violates freedom of religion. Eight of the judges found that the law is necessary to maintain public order and is respectful of the principle of religious freedom, called Pancasila in Indonesia. Dissenting judge Maria Farida, the first ever female member of the court, reasoned that the law should be revoked because it is at odds with the constitution since it only recognizes six religions and is used arbitrarily to suppress all other religions.

Blasphemy laws [JURIST news archive] have been a controversial issue in several countries. Last month, the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform proposed a referendum [JURIST report] to remove the criminal offense of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution [text, PDF]. Blasphemy is a punishable offense under section 40 of the constitution, but the language of the text had been deemed too vague to hold any prosecutions. In February, a Pakistani government official said that the country would begin to revise its blasphemy laws [JURIST report] later this year. Pakistan currently punishes blasphemy against Islam by death, but no one has yet been executed for the offense. Last year, the death sentence of Afghan journalism student Sayad Parwaz Kambaksh [JURIST news archive] for blasphemy was reduced [JURIST report] to 20 years' imprisonment by an Afghan appeals court. Kambaksh was sentenced to death [JURIST report] for distributing papers questioning gender roles under Islam. In 2008, the UK House of Lords voted to abolish [JURIST report] the criminal offenses of blasphemy and blasphemous libel from the UK common law.