JURIST - Paper Chase: Thursday, December 27, 2012

[JURIST] Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website, in Russian; JURIST news archive] announced Thursday that he intends to sign a recently passed bill that would prohibit United States citizens from adopting Russian children. The legislation was unanimously passed this week [JURIST report] by the Council of Federation [official website], the upper house of the Russian parliament, after passing the lower house by a vote of 420 to 7. The bill is widely viewed as retaliation against US legislation [WP report] aimed at corrupt Russian officials and signed into law earlier this month. In response to the Russian bill's passage the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) [official website] urged the Russian government to act only in the best interest of the children [press release] affected by such a measure:

We encourage the government to establish a robust national social protection plan to help strengthen Russian families. Alternatives to the institutionalization of children are essential, including permanent foster care, domestic adoption and inter-country adoption ... All children deserve an environment that promotes their protection and well-being. Russian children—indeed all children—need to be in protective and loving families or family-like environments.

The Russian adoption law is known as the Yakovlev initiative, after US-adopted Russian toddler Dima Yakolev, who died in Virginia in 2008. It will still allow Russian children to be taken to the US by relatives.

The Russian Legal Information Agency (RAPSI) [official website], a legal information agency which operates in coordination with Russian courts, reports the Yakovlev initiative was adopted in retaliation [RAPSI report] against the US Magnitsky Act [text]. The new US legislation places financial and visa sanctions on officials connected to the arrest, imprisonment and death of Sergei Magnitsky [BBC report], a lawyer and whistleblower who unearthed a US$230 million tax fraud, and was subsequently arrested by the police officers he accused of carrying out the fraud. Magnitsky died in prison in 2009 [JURIST report]. The Yakovlev initiative comes just months after Russia and the US entered into an agreement [JURIST report] tightening restrictions on international adoptions.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] has urged Saudi Arabia [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] to dismiss a criminal case escalated last week to a senior Saudi court on apostasy charges. Website editor Raif Badawi, 30, was originally charged with “insulting Islam through electronic channels” for co-founding the religious discussion website Free Saudi Liberals, but he now faces the death penalty for renouncing Islam [HRW report]. After presiding over five sessions of the trial at the Jeddah District Court, Judge Abdulrahim al-Muhaydeef was replaced without explanation by Judge Muhammad al-Marsoom, who referred the case to the Public Court of Jeddah on December 17 with a recommendation to try Badawi for apostasy. Shariah-based Saudi law is not codified and judges do not follow a system of precedent, but apostasy is a capital offense punishable by death. HRW claims that Badawi's arrest violates his right to freedom of expression. Badawi was detained by security forces in June. The website was originally founded in 2008 and included articles that were critical of senior religious figures, and has since been removed.

Saudi Arabia has been criticized for conducting unfair trials against opposition leaders and human rights activists. In August, several international human rights groups, including HRW, sent a letter to the Saudi Ministry of Justice [official website, in Arabic] seeking to observe the trials of four rights activists [JURIST report]. Saudi lawyer Walid Abu al-Khair and writer Mikhlif al-Shammari, and professors and human rights advocates Abdullah al-Hamid and Mohammad al-Qahtani face charges of defaming the country's reputation, supporting international human rights groups and sparking demonstrations against the government. In July, HRW first urged Saudi authorities to release Badawi [HRW report] soon after he was charged with infringing on religious values under the Saudi 2007 Anti-Cybercrime law. In January, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] reported on the increased use of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia [JURIST report] and increased use of torture to obtain confessions. Additionally, HRW revealed that the number of capital punishment cases in the country has nearly tripled since 2010.

[JURIST] More than 20 civilians, including eight children, were killed in Syria's northern province of al-Raqqa, according to a video [Youtube video] posted Wednesday by activists. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [official website, Arabic] also reported [Al Jazeera report] that many other civilians were injured in the government's attack. The video posted online displayed several dead bodies on blankets outside of houses, including one child. There has been an escalation of violence in Raqqa as the opposition seeks to oust the current regime from the province bordering Turkey. The UN and Russia have renewed calls for a peace initiative [AP report] that was originally proposed [JURIST report] in June at an international conference in Geneva. The plan called for a cease-fire, a transition government to take power until the country's elections, and a new constitution. The plan was initially rejected by both political parties in Syria. The opposition was opposed to this plan because the plan did not explicitly ban President Bashar Assad [JURIST news archives] from participating in the transition government. The regime in power rejected the plan because it would involve them giving up power.

The Syrian government has been in conflict with the opposition since 2011, and the international community has become increasingly concerned about the violence. Last week the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (COI) [official website] in Syria released its latest periodic update [JURIST report], finding persistent violence and human rights abuses. The update covered the period of September 28, when the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution extending [JURIST report] the COI's mission, until December 16. Earlier this month US President Barack Obama [JURIST news archives] recognized the leading Syrian opposition coalition as the legitimate representative of the country's people. A UN official said last month that a video posted on the Internet of Syrian rebels executing government soldiers who had surrendered may be evidence of war crimes [JURIST report]. In October, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called on the international community to work to bring an end to the Syrian conflict [JURIST report].

[JURIST] US Supreme Court [official website] Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday denied [opinion, PDF] Hobby Lobby, Inc.'s [corporate website] application for injunction which would have prevented enforcement of the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [text; JURIST backgrounder] mandating that companies provide employees with coverage for contraceptives pending its appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] challenging the provision. Sotomayor ruled that the Oklahoma City family's religiously oriented business did not meet the requirements to continue the injunction [SCOTUSblog report] against the PPACA's mandate. The opinion stated that the Hobby Lobby family did not meet the standard of showing that they have an "indisputably clear" legal right to an injunction while appeal is pending. Justice Sotomayor stated:

While the applicants allege they will face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between complying with the contraception-coverage requirement and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction. Even without an injunction pending appeal, the applicants may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts. Following a final judgment, they may, if necessary, file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court.

Justice Sotomayor's opinion was limited to whether the injunction should stand and did not address whether the constitutional challenge would succeed.

This is the first time that the Supreme Court has been involved in the legal battles over the contraceptives mandate in the PPACA, but more than forty lawsuits have been filed challenging the provision. Sotomayor's opinion, however, is just the latest development in the legal battle over the PPACA. Last week, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri [official website] blocked [JURIST report] a Missouri law which prohibits mandatory insurance coverage of birth control for any employers with ethical or religious objections, finding that the state law conflicts with the PPACA. The Missouri Insurance Coalition [official website] sought to have the state law blocked, arguing that it is invalid because it conflicts with federal law. Earlier this month, attorneys for the federal government filed a motion [JURIST report] with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to dismiss a complaint challenging the PPACA. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt had filed a suit in January against the federal health care law arguing that "Congress had exceeded its Article I powers by enacting the Act's minimum coverage provision. Last month the US Supreme Court remanded Liberty University v. Geithner [JURIST reports] to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website]. The court ordered the lower court to re-consider the case in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [JURIST report], in which the Supreme Court decided in June that the PPACA is a constitutionally valid exercise of Congress's powers under the Taxing Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder].