 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, August 9, 2012 |
 |
|


UN expert urges Colombia to advance dialogue with indigenous peoples
Sung Un Kim on August 9, 2012 3:34 PM ET

[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people James Anaya [official website] on Thursday urged [press release, in Spanish] the government of Colombia [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] to advance its negotiations with indigenous authorities in northern Cauca regarding the military presence in the area, as well as other pressing issues. Anaya called for a good faith dialogue to find solutions in compliance with international human rights standards, noting that the indigenous people have the right to self-determination [UN News Centre report] and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People [text, PDF]. Anaya added that the Colombian government has the obligation to respect such rights and that it must consult with the indigenous authorities before it establishes military presence in their territories. The dialogue started when leaders of the Nasa tribe, in northern part of Cauca, attempted to expel governmental forces and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) [BBC backgrounder] from their territories. There were reports of violence in the region against indigenous people and property committed by the forces.
Colombia has been facing armed conflict for decades without any sight of resolution. In June the country's Congress approved [JURIST report] a new law to provide a "Legal Framework for Peace" by a vote of 63-3. It is expected that the proposed law, backed by President Juan Manuel Santos [official website, in Spanish], will assist the government in engaging in peace negotiations with Leftist rebel groups including FARC and the smaller National Liberation Army (ELN) [BBC backgrounders] and stop the violence in the country. In December the representative to Colombia for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] Christian Salazar called [JURIST report] for a peaceful solution to the country's ongoing violence. In June of last year President Santos signed legislation to compensate victims of the country's armed conflict after the Colombian senate passed [JURIST reports] it a month earlier. Multinational corporations have also been involved in the country's violence. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] revived a wrongful death lawsuit [JURIST report] brought against Drummond Company [corporate website] for hiring Colombian paramilitaries to assassinate plaintiffs' fathers. In 2010 victims of paramilitary violence filed suit [JURIST report] against Chiquita Brand International [corporate website] in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida [official website] for funding a right-wing paramilitary group in Colombia that was accused of mass killings during the Colombia guerrilla warfare movement.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal appeals court reverses its own ruling in motorist privacy case
Dan Taglioli on August 9, 2012 3:09 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] on Monday overturned [opinion, PDF] the decisions of both a panel of its own judges and a lower court in the case of Senne v. Palatine [materials], a privacy lawsuit filed by a motorist against the village of Palatine, Illinois. Jason M. Senne filed suit against the village after receiving a parking ticket in August 2010, where the citation left on his windshield included his name, address, driver's license number, date of birth, sex, height and weight, the car's VIN number and other vehicle information details. Senne maintained that publicly displaying such information constituted a violation of the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) [materials], which prohibits release of information found in motor vehicle records. The district court had granted Palatine's motion to dismiss on the grounds that issuing a parking citation was not a disclosure under the statute and that, even if it were, it fell within a specifically permitted purpose identified in the statute. A three-judge panel led by Judge Richard Posner affirmed the decision, but Senne appealed to the full court and was granted a hearing en banc. The full court reversed the earlier decisions, concluding "that the parking ticket at issue here did constitute a disclosure regulated by the DPPA, and … the facts as alleged are sufficient to state a claim that the disclosure on his parking ticket exceeded that permitted by the statute." The original citation was for a $20 parking violation.
Privacy can be a nebulous legal concept and is often litigated. Last week the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit [JURIST report] in federal court against the new Stop Insider Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) [S 2038, PDF] requirement that federal employees disclose all financial transactions over $1,000. The ACLU maintains the provision is an unconstitutional invasion of these employees' privacy because the STOCK Act requires that these disclosures be readily available on the Internet. That same week the ACLU announced [JURIST report] that its affiliates in 38 states had sent letters to local and state police departments asking them to clarify how they use information obtained from automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), cameras mounted near roads and highways that photograph and record license plate numbers. There the ACLU expressed concern that police departments are gathering and storing information about the travel patterns of all vehicles, regardless of whether they are vehicles of interest, alleging that "responsible deletion of data is the exception, not the norm."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Israel urged to investigate mistreatment of Palestinian detainees
Sung Un Kim on August 9, 2012 2:56 PM ET

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website; press release] on Thursday stated that Israel should investigate the alleged mistreatment of two Palestinian prisoners currently on hunger strike [JURIST news archive]. The lawyer for Hassan Safadi and Samer al-Barq, who have been on hunger strike since June 21 and May 22 respectively, argued that they were subject to beatings and other maltreatment by prison officials at the Israel Prison Service Medical Centre in the city of Ramleh. The detainees have been diagnosed as being in high health risk and possibly facing death if they continue their hunger strikes. AI's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa Ann Harrison called on Israeli authorities to immediately release Hassan Safadi, Samer al-Barq and all other administrative detainees, or promptly charged them with recognizable criminal offenses and have them tried in accordance with international standards. Safadi, who has been detained since June 2011 and ended his first hunger strike in May went on another hunger strike after his administrative detention was renewed for another six months.
In June AI urged the Israeli government to release all prisoners of conscience and other administrative detainees [JURIST report] or immediately try them under international fair trial standards. AI revealed that Israel has been using a number of laws, such as the Military Order 1651 and the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law, to detain only Palestinians despite its application to everyone. It also discovered that those who went on hunger strike were subject to ill-treatment and punishments. In May, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called on Israel to try or release more than 1,000 prisoners [JURIST report] who had been on hunger strike to avoid health risks. Earlier the same month the Israeli Supreme Court [official website, in Hebrew] ruled against [JURIST report] two detainees who had been on hunger strike in their appeal seeking release from detention. During the same month, UN Special Rapporteur of the occupied Palestinian territory [official website] expressed its concern [JURIST report] for the continued human rights violations in Israel's prisons. It called the country to comply with the international standards of how to treat detainees.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

College and pro sports leagues sue New Jersey to prevent sports gambling
Julia Zebley on August 9, 2012 1:14 PM ET

[JURIST] Professional and college sports leagues filed a lawsuit [complaint text, PDF] against the state of New Jersey Monday trying to enjoin a new law that would legalize sports gambling. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and the National Basketball Association (NBA) [corporate websites] filed suit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey [official website] alleging that the new Sports Gambling Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) [text], the federal regulation prohibiting sports gambling. PASPA sequesters legal sports gambling to four states, which does not include New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie [official website] signed the Sports Gambling Law in January following its passage via referendum [JURIST report] in November, and it is expected to go into effect in the next two months. The plaintiffs contend that irreparable harm will be done to the sports industry if the state law is allowed to go into effect:Amateur and professional sports are an integral part of American culture, particularly among the country's youth who often look up to athletes as role models. The sponsorship, operation, advertising, promotion, licensure, and authorization of sports gambling in New Jersey would irreparably harm amateur and professional sports by fostering suspicion that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition. As Congress recognized when it enacted PASPA, the proliferation of sports gambling threatens to harm the reputation and goodwill of Plaintiffs, and to adversely affect the way the public views amateur and professional sports. Plaintiffs cannot be compensated in money damages for the harm that sports gambling poses to the character and integrity of their respective sporting events. Once their reputation and goodwill have been compromised, and the bonds of loyalty and devotion between fans and teams have been broken, Plaintiffs will have been irreparably injured in a manner that cannot be measured in dollars. In response Christie contended that New Jersey, in regulating sports gambling, is legalizing activity that goes on in every state regardless of the law [AP report] and that regulating gambling is federal overreach.
There is a presumptive prohibition on most forms of gambling in the US, although restrictions on some forms of Internet gambling were loosened late last year when the Department of Justice (DOJ) clarified that non-sports online gambling is presumptively legal [JURIST report]. JURIST Guest Columnist Patrick Fleming [official profile] argued that the decision bolstered the legitimacy of Internet betting [JURIST comment], yet the gambling landscape remains a patchwork of many distinct standards and statutory definitions. The DOJ has not commented on the recent New Jersey attempts to legalize sports gambling, nor whether they will take action against them in Federal court.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

DOJ argues continued attorney access at Guantanamo is government decision
Brandon Gatto on August 9, 2012 8:37 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Tuesday filed a brief [text, PDF] with the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] asserting that the government should decide when a Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] prisoner is granted continued regular access to legal counsel absent a detainee's ongoing legal challenge. The issue for the court will be whether the 2008 US Supreme Court [official website] decision in Boumediene v. Bush [text] grants federal courts the authority to control habeas corpus petitions from foreign combatants in the custody of the US military. Upholding the position [CNN report] of the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] would allow military officials to determine on a case-by-case basis when detainees could challenge their detention. It would also provide Guantanamo's Navy base commander with sole veto power over attorney access to prisoner clients and access to classified material. While government lawyers have labeled the dispute as "important" yet "quite narrow," volunteer private attorneys contend that they should be afforded regular access to their imprisoned clients regardless of a habeas petition or other pending charge before the court. Chief Judge Royce Lamberth [official profile], who frequently decides prisoner appeals, will hear the case on August 17.
The DOJ is supporting its argument with Executive Order 13,567 [text], which was issued on March 7, 2011 and involves Periodic Review Boards (PRBs). PRBs are military panels in charge of deciding whether a petitioning prisoner should continue to be detained, as well as whether the prisoner is a national security threat. Specifically, the government contends that the order "does not provide detainees who undergo PRB review with a judicially enforceable right to counsel, or any justification for asking the Court to impose a counsel-access regime on the PRB process other than the one developed, per the Order's direction, by the Secretary of Defense." The case will require further interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene [JURIST report], where it held that federal courts have jurisdiction to review habeas corpus petitions filed by Guantanamo detainees who have been classified as "enemy combatants."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|