[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in Krupski v. Costa Crociere [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on the appropriate construction of "mistake" in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) [text]. The rule permits an amended complaint to "relate back" for statute of limitation purposes when the amendment corrects a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the rule does not apply to substitution of the correct defendant for a related corporation with a similar name where the plaintiff has imputed knowledge of the identity of the added defendant prior to filing suit. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rule should apply when substituting the correct defendant. Counsel for the respondent argued that there can be no mistake where the plaintiff knows all the facts. There is a circuit split on the issue.

[JURIST] Five international Muslim Brotherhood (MB) [party website; JURIST news archive] members will be tried [MB press release] in an Egyptian criminal court on charges of money laundering, Attorney General Abdul Magid Mahmoud announced Wednesday. The members, including Muslim Brotherhood International Secretary General Ibrahim Munir, were referred to the Supreme State Security Emergency Court for trial. The five members have been accused of laundering money [AFP report] through a British-based Islamic charity in order to fund the MB movement, which has been banned in Egypt [JURIST news archive]. In a statement, MB media spokesman Mohamed Morsy said the charges are a move by the Egyptian government to escalate the tense relationship between the two:

At a time when all opposition factors in Egypt including the MB are uniting in the call for the elimination of the oppressive 'Emergency Law', the ruling regime has once again demonstrated its inability to interact with its people and practice democracy. We, the MB, will continue the path of promoting peace and will continue calling for reform through the regulatory and legitimate constitutional channels in which we have always adhered to. None of the ruling regime's measures will deter us.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Monday urged [press release] Kyrgyzstan's interim government to begin a comprehensive investigation into the violence [JURIST report] between April 6 and 8 that resulted in the overthrow of president Kurmanbek Bakiyev [BBC profile]. After conducting witness interviews and examining photo and video evidence, HRW concluded [report text] that the violence was fueled by the actions of both security forces and demonstrators and called on the government to officially request assistance from the international community to "help to safeguard against accusations of bias" in the probe. HRW claims that authorities committed several violations of international law, which stipulates that lethal force may only be used as a last resort, citing in particular the alleged shooting of an unarmed man seeking to negotiate. The interim government is currently planning to try [JURIST report] members of Bakiyev's family and administration on charges that include corruption and human rights violations.

Kyrgyz interim leader Roza Otunbayeva [Telegraph profile] said last week that Bakiyev should stand trial [JURIST report] for the recent violence. Despite the pledge to bring Bakiyev and his allies to justice, so far only former defense minister Baktybek Kaliyev has been arrested [AFP report]. It is believed that Bakiyev is currently in Belarus, and interim officials have said they will seek extradition to bring him before their courts. The protests, prompted in part by a drastic increase in utility costs, led to at least 84 deaths [Reuters report] and many more injuries. Earlier this month, Otunbayeva launched the interim government [JURIST report] after the violence forced Bakiyev to flee the capital. The protests came just one week after UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] urged Kyrgyzstan to protect all forms of human rights [JURIST report], including "free speech and freedom of the media."

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] in Perdue v. Kentucky [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that calculation of an attorney's fee based on the lodestar may be increased due to superior performance, but only in extraordinary circumstances. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the lower court's enhancement of attorney's fees in a class action suit, finding that even though factors such as quality of performance and results obtained are already included in the lodestar calculation, they may appropriately be considered to enhance the fees. In reversing the lower court decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule. But as we have also said in prior cases, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient; factors subsumed in the lodestar calculation cannot be used as a ground for increasing an award above the lodestar; and a party seeking fees has the burden of identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified. Because the District Court did not apply these standards, we reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[JURIST] Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva [official profile; JURIST news archive] announced Wednesday that he is prepared to negotiate with protesters once they cease their illegal conduct. Government spokesperson Panitan Wattanyagorn stated that the prime minister is willing to speak with protesters [BBC report] regarding an election and amending the constitution once protesters abide by the law. Anti-government protesters, known as red shirts [BBC backgrounder], have been associated with a series on unlawful acts [AP report], including blocking a train carrying military vehicles and fortifying their base area with tire barriers and homemade weapons. Their camp, which occupies Bangkok's business district, has forced businesses to close and suffer financial losses. Unidentified attackers have also caused fire damage after launching rocket-propelled grenades at a fuel depot near an airport. The red shirts claim [BBC report] that Abhisit came to power illegitimately and that he should resign and call for elections.

The protests are currently in their sixth week and have led to an increasingly hostile political climate in Thailand. On Tuesday, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for an investigation [JURIST report] into the deaths of 25 people during recent anti-government protests. Earlier this month, a Thai court issued arrest warrants [JURIST report] for at least 17 high-profile protesters, including top red shirt officials. Abhisit hopes that the arrest warrants will encourage the protesters to disperse. Abhisit was forced to declare a state of emergency earlier this month after a Thai court refused to issue an injunction [JURIST reports] against the protesters. The protesters are supporters of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who was removed from power [JURIST report] during a 2006 military coup. Thaksin was convicted [JURIST report] in absentia on corruption charges in October 2008. Despite the conviction, the Cambodian government refused to extradite [JURIST report] the ousted prime minister to face a two-year prison sentence.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official website] said Wednesday that he will take into account a potential nominee's position on individual liberty, including women's rights, when nominating a Supreme Court justice. Speaking at a meeting with Senate leaders, Obama acknowledged that abortion [JURIST news archive] has been "a hugely contentious issue in our country for a very long time" and explained [text] how his approach to choosing a nominee will take reproductive rights into account:

I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction. ... I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights. And that's going to be something that's very important to me, because I think part of what our core ... constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in Jerman v. Carlisle [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a debt collector's legal error does not qualify for the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) [15 USC § 1692 text, PDF]. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that although the defendants violated the FDCPA by giving erroneous legal advice, they qualified for the FDCPA bona fide error defense. In reversing the decision below, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court:

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act) imposes civil liability on "debt collector[s]" for certain prohibited debt collection practices. Section 813(c) of the Act provides that a debt collector is not liable in an action brought under the Act if she can show "the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." This case presents the question whether the "bona fide error" defense in &setc; 1692k(c) applies to a violation resulting from a debt collector's mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. We conclude it does not.

[JURIST] Eleven Philippines policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty Wednesday to murder charges for their involvement in the November 2009 massacre [CSM backgrounder; JURIST news archive] that left 57 dead. The arraignment [Manila Bulletin report] was held in Camp Bagong Diwa, which is also the headquarters of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) [official website]. The arraignment of four additional suspects was delayed until April 30 after a last minute motion was filed by their counsel. The decision to defer was made despite objections from the prosecution that the motion was a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. Several family members of the victims attended the arraignment. The family members had filed a manifestation with the court asking that the proceedings be delayed [Reuters report] until after upcoming elections, as they fear justice can not be served under current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [official website]. The court acknowledged the manifestation but still proceeded. The timing of the arraignment, as well as the pending trials of several other key suspects, has increased the concern over potential violence surrounding the May elections.

The arraignment comes just days after prosecutors dropped charges[AP report] against two massacre suspects, causing accusations of political interference. Last month, a Quezon City court dismissed [JURIST report] rebellion charges against 24 people, including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines' semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Esmael Mangudadatu's convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans' group killed and buried them. In order to prove their cases against the large number of accused, the prosecution will have to rely heavily on oral testimonies [JURIST op-ed] that can often prove to be problematic. Following the killings, Arroyo imposed martial law [JURIST report] and suspended habeas corpus in Maguindanao. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure [JURIST reports] and domestic legal challenges.

[JURIST] A federal court in Argentina on Tuesday sentenced [verdict, PDF, in Spanish; CIJ report, in Spanish] former president and military general Reynaldo Bignone [JURIST news archive] to 25 years in prison for human rights abuses during the 1976-83 "Dirty War" [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Bignone served as de facto president from 1982 to 1983 and represents the last dictator to hold power during the military regime that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983. The court found Bignone guilty [BBC report] of involvement in 56 cases of murder, torture, and kidnappings in one of Argentina's largest torture centers, the Campo de Mayo military base. The court also sentenced [AP report] five other retired military officers to prison terms ranging from 17 to 25 years in connection with abuses during the military regime.

Bignone went on trial [press release, in Spanish; JURIST report] in November on charges stemming from two separate federal court determinations that he should stand trial. In April 2007, Bignone was ordered to stand trial [JURIST report] for the kidnapping of children of dissidents killed during the "Dirty War." Bignone had already been ordered in March 2007 to stand trial [JURIST report] on separate charges connected to the illegal arrest, torture, and killing of dissidents at secret detention centers in Buenos Aires. Earlier that same month, an Argentine federal judge ordered Bignone's arrest [JURIST report] for his role in the alleged abuses.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 in Conkright v. Frommert [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that 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. In reversing the opinion below, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

We held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch that an ERISA plan administrator with discretionary authority to interpret a plan is entitled to deference in exercising that discretion. The question here is whether a single honest mistake in plan interpretation justifies stripping the administrator of that deference for subsequent related interpretations of the plan. We hold that it does not.

[JURIST] A spokesperson for French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French; BBC profile] said Wednesday that the president is in favor of a complete public ban on the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full face veils and will be submitting a bill to parliament in May. According to spokesperson Luc Chatel, Sarkozy wants the ban to be carried out in a way that doesn't stigmatize individuals for their religious beliefs and practices, but he feels that the veils are oppressive and harm female dignity [Reuters report]. In addition to the bill, parliament will also be discussing a separate resolution on May 11, which will discuss ways of limiting the use of full veils. The issue has sparked debate with feminists supporting the ban because it prevents women from being forced into wearing the veils, and others questioning the proposed ban's constitutionality. France houses the largest Muslim population in the European Union [official website] with Muslims comprising about 10 percent of the total French population.

Last month, the French Council of State advised the French government against a complete ban [JURIST report] on full Islamic veils because it risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. France already has a partial ban that prevents public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity and also prohibits veils in public schools. Critics of the ban say the law would alienate France's Muslim minority [JURIST comment] and violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [text], of which France is a signatory. Last month, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill [Star report] that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services, which garnered support from members of the Muslim Canadian Congress who argue that the law would not violate human rights [JURIST comment] and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society. Also last month, a Belgian parliamentary committee voted unanimously [JURIST report] to completely ban the wearing of full veils in public. If approved, Belgium will be the first European nation to impose a nationwide restriction on traditional face-covering veils.

[JURIST] The UK Supreme Court [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF] Wednesday that the country's sex offender registry [Guardian backgrounder] requirement violates the right to privacy. The case involved an appeal filed by two convicted sex offenders who challenged the notification requirement [legislative materials] of Section 82 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which mandates indefinite notification for any individual sentenced to 30 or more months in prison for a sex offense. The trial court ruled that Section 82 of the Act was incompatible with privacy rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [materials]. The Supreme Court considered several issues before affirming that dismissal, including how valuable the notification requirements are for achieving the goal of lower crime, and the extent of harm to that goal if the notification requirements were subject to review. The court considered empirical evidence that, over a 21-year period, 75 percent of sex offenders in the UK were not re-convicted, and that, despite the possibility that a convicted offender may be able to prove he will not re-offend, he or she has no recourse. Lord Phillips, writing for the court, concluded:

I think that it is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified. As the courts below have observed, it is open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for review.

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Tuesday called for an investigation [public statement, PDF] into the deaths of 25 people during recent anti-government protests. The group stated that it would welcome a pledge by the Thai government to "investigate promptly, effectively, and impartially the recent violence," and urges it to "provide accountability for any violations by security forces as well as abuses by violent protesters." The protesters, known as red shirts [BBC backgrounder], claim [BBC report] that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva [official profile; JURIST news archive] came to power illegitimately and that he should resign and call for elections. After the death toll rose to 21, the Thai army was called in [BBC reports] on Monday to prevent the protests from spreading into Bangkok's financial district. While AI's statement recognized that the military's use of force may have been justified by the fact that some of the protesters were armed with guns and grenades, the group also urged the Thai government to adhere to international principles on crowd dispersal and the use of force. Such principles dictate that law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary

The protests are currently in their sixth week and have led to an increasingly hostile political climate in Thailand. Earlier this month, a Thai court issued arrest warrants [JURIST report] for at least 17 high-profile protesters, including top red shirt officials. Abhisit hopes that the arrest warrants will encourage the protesters to disperse. Abhisit was forced to declare a state of emergency earlier this month after a Thai court refused to issue an injunction [JURIST reports] against the protesters. The protesters are supporters of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who was removed from power [JURIST report] during a 2006 military coup. Thaksin was convicted [JURIST report] in absentia on corruption charges in October 2008. Despite the conviction, the Cambodian government refused to extradite [JURIST report] the ousted prime minister to face a two-year prison sentence.

[JURIST] British human rights lawyers on Monday submitted documents to a UK High Court that allege Britain allowed Afghan detainees to be tortured [press release] following their transfer to Afghanistan authorities. The documents were submitted by Public Interest Lawyers [advocacy website] on behalf of human rights and anti-war activist Maya Evans, who is seeking a judicial inquiry [CBC report] into Britain's policy for transferring detainees in Afghanistan. Evans alleges that British officials turned over al Qaeda and Taliban suspects to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS), which is believed to have used torture [Globe and Mail report] as a means of interrogating prisoners. The documents detail nine cases of detainee abuse, including the use of physical beatings, electrocution, and sleep deprivation. The application for review has been opposed by Secretary of State for Defence Bob Ainsworth [official profile], who has said that safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse.

Concerns over detainee abuse were first brought to light in a 2007 report [text; JURIST report] by Amnesty International [advocacy website], which said that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) [official website], led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was exposing terrorism detainees to risks of torture by transferring NATO-held detainees into custody of Afghanistan authorities. Amnesty's report focused on actions by Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK, saying that the forces from those countries have been transferring terror detainees to the NDS, despite numerous reports of torture. The report prompted Evans to bring her suit seeking judicial review in 2008. The case mirrors similar allegations that Canadian military officials were complicit [JURIST news archive] in the torture of detainees that were transferred to Afghanistan officials.