Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced that he will create a panel [JURIST report] to investigate claims that British government agents were complicit in the torture of terrorism suspects held overseas. The inquiry comes after 12 ex-detainees brought civil cases against the government, claiming that British agents took part in their mistreatment while they were held in prisons in foreign countries, including Pakistan and Morocco. The UK will ask the ex-detainees to drop their lawsuits [AP report] in exchange for possible compensation and a promise that the inquiry will fully investigate their claims. Cameron said that he hopes to start the investigation by the end of the year, once a separate investigation [JURIST report] into the actions of MI5 and MI6 agents at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] concludes, and to have a full report back within the next 12 months. It has yet to be determined whether parts of the investigation will be held publicly. The UK government indicated last month that it will issue a new set of regulations regarding the use of information obtained via torture [JURIST report]. Claims of complicity in torture were made against the government in a report [materials] released last week by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. According to HRW, intelligence services in France, Germany and the UK lack proper oversight of intelligence information that is received from countries that torture.

There is a principle - which is compatible with the presumption of innocence, and is deeply ingrained in our sense of justice - that individuals wrongly accused of a crime should suffer neither stigma nor adverse consequences by virtue of an arrest or criminal accusation not resulting in conviction. ... Those accused of a crime are permitted to have their records sealed upon the dismissal of the charges. Therefore, simple justice as well as common sense suggest that those questioned by police and not even accused of a crime should not be subjected to perpetual suspicion.

"Stop and frisk" detentions are considered an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment [text], based on an officer's reasonable suspicion and the necessity to protect the safety of police officers. Courts continue developing the case law surrounding the Fourth Amendment, balancing privacy issues against social necessity. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in City of Ontario v. Quon [Cornell LII backgrounder] that an employer's search of private text messages on a work-issued device does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and is not excessive in scope. In February, a US court of appeals ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that strip searching all incoming inmates does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it is necessary in order to prevent illegal substances from entering prisons. The Ohio Supreme Court [official website] ruled in December that a warrantless search of the contents of a suspect's cell phone violates the Fourth Amendment [JURIST report] prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, unless the search is necessary to protect the officers' safety or there are other exigent circumstances

Society rightly demands the highest of standards from the high hazard industries. The risks created by these businesses must be managed effectively because when things go wrong in this sector, the consequences are severe and can destroy lives, shatter local communities and cause damage to the environment that lasts for generations. ...From the Board room down companies must ask themselves these questions: do we understand what could go wrong; do we know what our systems are to prevent this happening; and are we getting the right information to assure us they are working effectively.

Total oil has recently faced a series of high-profile legal challenges. In April, a French judge charged Total with bribery and complicity [JURIST report] in connection with a scandal involving the UN's Iraq Oil-for-Food program [official website; JURIST news archive]. The company denied the allegations, stating that the company followed UN policy and acted lawfully [text, PDF]. In March, the Paris Appellate Court [official website, in French] upheld a lower court's 2008 decision finding Total and several other defendants criminally liable for an oil spill [JURIST report] that occurred of the coast of Brittany in 1999. The court also increased the fine against the defendants from 192 million euros to 200 million euros. Over 20,000 tons of oil [Euronews report] seeped from an oil tanker called Erika, which Total chartered from an Italian company, decimating 400 kilometers of coastline and causing harm to wildlife. Total has indicated that it plans to appeal the judgment [Reuters report].

In January, the Zimbabwe High Court [GlobaLex backgrounder] ruled that it is not bound [JURIST report] by the Tribunal's decision ordering the state to halt its land reforms, refusing to register it. Justice Bharat Patel stated that enforcing the ruling, which was in favor of white farmers whose land was taken over in the government's farm redistribution program [JURIST report], would violate the Zimbabwean Constitution [text, PDF] and would be against public policy. Patel believed that a decision in favor the SADC ruling would lead to the removal of the majority of the people that the government was trying to support through the redistribution program. The High Court had previously ruled that the Tribunal is not superior [JURIST report] to the courts of the individual SADC member countries. In December 2008, four white Zimbabwe farmers were charged with trespassing [JURIST report] on state property for failing to vacate lands that the government seized for the land reform program, in open defiance of the November 2008 Tribunal ruling. One of the farmers, Colin Cloete, filed suit to cause the government and attorney general to register the SADC ruling in the High Court Registry, a step necessary to enable its enforcement in the country.

China's state secrets law has frequently been criticized for alleged overbreadth. In November, rights activist Huang Qi was sentenced to three years in prison [JURIST report] for violating the state secrets law when he discussed how some schools collapsed after the Sichuan province earthquake [BBC backgrounder] in 2008 because of shoddy construction. In March, four employees of Australian mining company Rio Tinto [corporate website] were convicted of receiving bribes and stealing commercial secrets [JURIST report] during stalled iron ore price negotiations and sentenced to a range of seven to 14 years in prison. In April, the Chinese government revised the state secrets law [JURIST report] to require Internet and telecommunications companies to inform on customers who share state secrets. China began a review of its state secrets law last June after concerns were raised regarding Internet filtering software [JURIST reports] on computers sold in that country.

Over the past several years, Syria has increased its prosecution of political dissidents, drawing strong criticism from the international community. Earlier this month, a Syrian military court sentenced Haitham Maleh [RNW profile] to three years in prison for "weakening national morale." The 78-year-old former judge was put on trial in October 2009 sparking criticism from the US government [press release] and several human rights groups. In October 2008 a Damascus criminal court sentenced 12 dissidents [JURIST report] found guilty on charges of weakening national sentiment, broadcasting false or exaggerated news that could affect the morale of the country, joining an organization formed with the purpose of changing the financial or social status of the state and inciting sectarian strife. In January 2008, the Syrian government arrested former parliamentarian [JURIST report] and dissident Riyad Sayf, a prominent member of the "Damascus Declaration" group, which, in 2005, issued a declaration urging Syria to embark on democratic transition and improve relations with Lebanon. In 2007, a Syrian court sentenced writer and activist Michel Kilo [JURIST report] to a prison term of three years for "speaking false news, weakening national feeling and inciting sectarian sentiments."

Russia continues facing criticism from the international community regarding its human rights record. In October, the UN Human Rights Committee [official website] issued a report [text; JURIST report] criticizing Russia's record on human rights and calling on the country to take extensive legal reform in order to guarantee its citizens rights such as fair trials and freedoms of speech and of the press. Last June, the Council of Europe (COE) [official website] urged substantial reforms [JURIST report] to correct systemic problems in the Russian legal system, including the prevalence of political prosecutions and a lack of judicial independence. Medvedev has acknowledged the need for judicial reform [JURIST report], saying that transparent courts would restore faith in the justice system and prevent people from seeking redress in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website].

Ultimately the success or otherwise of this agreement will be determined by what the main players do next. The ball is now in Zimbabwe's court to make good on its promises and act to end one of the most egregious cases of diamond-related violence for many years. We fervently hope that the governments in the Kimberley Process will, for their part, hold Zimbabwe to its commitments in order to begin to restore the battered integrity of the scheme.

The agreement comes the same week as human rights activist Farai Maguwu was granted bail [JURIST report] by a Zimbabwean court. Maguwu was being held for allegedly supplying false information about Zimbabwe's diamond mining practices to the KP. In June, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged the body to remove Zimbabwe [JURIST report] from its membership. According to HRW, human rights abuses by the Zimbabwean government have persisted since the discovery of diamonds in the Marange fields. Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada have also called for the suspension of Zimbabwe's international diamond trade due to the human rights violations [Telegraph report] allegedly committed by the Zimbabwean army against civilians and illegal workers in the Marange diamond fields.

This testimony reveals that many brutal techniques reportedly used in CIA interrogations were not authorized by the Justice Department - the author of these legal memos has now admitted this on the record. These statements are highly relevant to the pending criminal investigation of detainee abuse and I have provided the Committee's interview to the Justice Department[.]

As former head of the OLC, Bybee signed off on a memo, released last year [JURIST report], authorizing the use of enhanced interrogation techniques as well as a controversial memo that defined torture as physical pain equivalent in "intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death." In January, Bybee and Yoo were cleared of allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the memos. The Office of Professional Responsibility [official website] concluded that the lawyers exercised poor judgment [JURIST report] in crafting the 2002 memos, but that their actions did not reach the level of professional misconduct. Originally, the OPR investigation had concluded that Yoo and Bybee had violated their professional obligations in crafting the memos, but this finding was softened by the reviewer. Bybee had previously declined a request by a Senate committee to testify about the interrogation memos [JURIST reports].

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] affirmed [JURIST report] Stewart's conviction in 2009, but ordered the district court to reconsider her sentence, finding that the current 28-month sentence was "out of line with the extreme seriousness of her criminal conduct." As part of his conviction, Rahman is subject to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), which limit his ability to communicate with individuals outside the prison. The court found that despite being a lawyer, Stewart was bound by the SAMs and knowingly and willfully lied about her intentions to comply. The court also found that Stewart provided and concealed material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country. Federal prosecutors sought the maximum sentence [JURIST report] of 30 years, saying that Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession ... deserves to be severely punished." In 2007, Stewart was disbarred [JURIST report] in the state of New York after her voluntary resignation was rejected.

This settlement is a stark lesson to Wall Street firms that no product is too complex, and no investor too sophisticated, to avoid a heavy price if a firm violates the fundamental principles of honest treatment and fair dealing.

The SEC action continues a trend in bringing action against financial corporations and their agents that engaged in allegedly illegal conduct at the start of the subprime mortgage downturn in 2007. In June, Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website] subsidiary Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that the subsidiary collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. In February, a district court judge accepted a $150 million dollar settlement agreement [JURIST report] between BOA and the SEC. The SEC had charged [JURIST report] BOA with misleading investors regarding billions of dollars paid to Merrill Lynch [corporate website] executives during the acquisition of the firm. The judge twice rejected a proposed settlement [JURIST report] between the SEC and BOA for $33 million, which did not admit any fault or directly penalize any corporate executives, calling the settlement unfair to the shareholders.

In February, a federal court ordered a final judgment of $22 million [JURIST] in the civil case against Emmanuel, to be paid to five torture victims. Emmanuel, a US citizen raised in Boston, was arrested in Miami on a passport violation in 2006 and pleaded guilty in September of that year. He was then indicted [JURIST report] on torture charges by a federal grand jury that December. He pleaded not guilty, and, in July 2008, a US District Court Judge upheld [JURIST report] the torture charges and rejected Emmanuel's constitutional argument. He was later denied bail [JURIST report] on grounds that he was a flight risk and a danger to the community. Emmanuel's father, Taylor, is currently on trial [case website] before the Special Court for Sierra Leone [official website] sitting at The Hague. Taylor faces 11 counts [indictment, PDF] of crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva Conventions [materials], and other violations of international humanitarian law stemming from a "campaign to terrorize the civilian population" of Sierra Leone.