 |
|

Legal news from Monday, February 4, 2013 |
 |
|


India president signs sexual assault ordinance
Alison Sacriponte on February 4, 2013 1:08 PM ET

[JURIST] Indian President Pranab Mukherjee [official website] signed an ordinance [text] on Sunday imposing stricter penalties for rape. The ordinance, which was passed by the Union Cabinet on Friday [Times of India report], will be tabled before the parliament within six weeks of the next session beginning on February 21. The new laws are effective immediately with the president's signature because parliament is not in session but the president deemed immediate action necessary. However, if the bill is not passed, the ordinance will lapse and the laws will no longer be valid. The new law provides for the death penalty in cases of rape that lead to death or a vegetative state, and the minimum sentence has doubled to 20 years for gang rape, rape of a minor, rape by policemen or a person in authority; it can also be extended to life without parole. Women's rights organizations, civil society groups and activists have criticized the ordinance for being inadequate to combat sexual crimes against women and for being passed without proper debate.
The rape and subsequent death [BBC reports] of a 23-year-old New Delhi medical student in December 2012 sparked mass protests in India and led to the creation of the committee that recommended the legal reforms in its report [JURIST report]. The report recommended numerous reforms in the way the nation's legal institutions handle rape cases, many of which were taken into consideration in the ordinance. In December Indian authorities charged six suspects [JURIST report] with murder after the death of the gang rape victim. Also in December Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [official profile] called for peace [JURIST report] after a protest over sexual violence resulted in a clash between protesters and police.


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

|

Rwanda genocide tribunal overturns two convictions
Benjamin Minegar on February 4, 2013 11:58 AM ET

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday overturned [press release] the genocide convictions of former Rwandan ministers Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza after concluding that the trial chambers had erred in assessing key pieces of evidence. Mugenzi and Mugiraneza were arrested [case profile, PDF] in 1999 and indicted [indictment, PDF] on eight counts of genocide-related crimes for their alleged role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder]. The prosecution alleged that from 1990 to 1994, Mugenzi, then-acting Minister of Trade, made public statements inciting violence against the Tutsis and approved concealment of mass graves. Mugiraneza, then-acting Minister in charge of civil servants, allegedly issued orders and directives encouraging mass-killings. The ICTR convicted [judgment, PDF] both men in 2011 based on participation in a "joint criminal enterprise" that took place at a ceremony where then-President Theodore Sindikubwabo gave an "inflammatory speech inciting [the] killing of Tutsis." On appeal, the judges found that the the trial court had erred in assessing crucial evidence relating to the men's prior knowledge of the speech's content, and thus reversed the convictions and ordered their immediate release. According to media sources, the Rwandan government is likely to speak out against the ICTR's decision [BBC report], as both men were influential figures in the government during the 1994 massacre in which more than 800,000 Tutsis died at the hands of extremist Hutus.
The ICTR was established by UN Security Council in 1994 to investigate and prosecute alleged prominent players of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Since then, the ICTR has heard more than 70 cases [ICTR case index], and is set to dissolve in 2014 after hearing its final 15 appeals in light of the completion of its trial mandate. In December, the ICTR convicted [JURIST report] former Rwandan minister Augustin Ngirabatware and sentenced him to 35 years in prison to conclude the tribunal's final trial. Ngirabatware was found guilty on charges of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. Also in December, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution to extend the terms of five judges [JURIST report] at the tribunal. In July the ICTR transferred four genocide convicts to the Republic of Mali [JURIST report] to serve their sentences. A month earlier the tribunal transferred the case of Aloys Ndimbati [JURIST report], a former local government official in Rwanda who has been charged with genocide, complicity in genocide, incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity including murder, rape and persecution, to the authorities of the Republic of Rwanda. Earlier that month Bernard Munyagishari's case was the fifth to be transferred [JURIST report] to the country's court system.


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

|

Georgia Supreme Court rejects death row inmate's appeal
Sarah Posner on February 4, 2013 11:43 AM ET

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Georgia [official website] on Monday rejected [opinion, PDF] claims by death row inmate Warren Lee Hill [JURIST news archive] that the Board of Corrections violated the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [materials] by not holding a public hearing before changing the state's lethal injection [DPIC backgrounder] execution procedure. One of the APA's rule-making requirements is to give 30 days notice [OCGA § 15-13-4 text] to interested persons, the state's General Assembly and the Secretary of State before adopting or repealing any rule. The court's opinion states that the APA specifically excludes the Board of Corrections and penal institutions from qualifying "agencies" under the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the APA do not apply to the Board, unless a section of the Act specifically states otherwise. The court concluded that the Board of Corrections is not required by statute to make rules regarding the subject of lethal injection procedures. The Supreme Court of Georgia held:Due to litigation challenging existing methods of execution and due to other factors, both judicial and non-judicial, that have affected the availability of certain drugs, the Commissioner has recently found it necessary or wise to make repeated changes to the lethal injection procedures employed by the Department. We conclude that it was not unreasonable for the Board to entrust the specific topics involved in the management of executions to the Commissioner under the statutory and constitutional mandates that already apply to him rather than to give him detailed and rigid directives through rules. Thus the court concluded that the Board of Corrections does not have a legal duty under the APA to make rules regarding the lethal injection procedure.
In July the Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously granted a stay of execution [JURIST report] Hill 90 minutes before he was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. The court granted the stay to consider an appeal by Hill, 52, regarding the recent change by the Georgia Department of Corrections to its lethal injection protocol, the traditional three-drug "cocktail" having been replaced with a single dose of the sedative pentobarbital. In a separate order the court also denied Hill's request to hear his appeal of a Butts County Superior Court ruling, which held that Hill had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt [JURIST report] that he is mentally disabled, and that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard itself is constitutional. Terrica Ganzy [official profile], Staff Attorney for the Southern Center for Human Rights [advocacy website], argued that Warren Hill was improperly sentenced to death [JURIST comment] and that Georgia should adopt a "preponderance of evidence" standard for mentally disabled claims in capital offense cases.


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

|

Vietnam court hands down lengthy prison sentences to local dissidents
Dan Taglioli on February 4, 2013 10:52 AM ET

[JURIST] A group of 22 Vietnamese activists were sentenced to lengthy prison terms by the local People's Court in southern central Phu Yen province on Monday after the group was convicted of engaging in subversive activities to overthrow the county's communist government. According to their court-appointed lawyer, the group's 65-year-old leader Phan Van Thu was given a life sentence [Telegraph report] and the other 21 defendants were sentenced to between 10 and 17 years imprisonment with up to five years of house arrest afterward. Thu ran the non-violent group from 2003 until his arrest last February, when the state media reported that Thu had set up two eco-tourism companies as fronts for subversive activities [BBC report] such as producing documents critical of the administration. During the weeklong trial each of the 22 men admitted to acting with an aim to overthrow the government. While the proceedings marked the country's largest subversion trial in years, dozens of Vietnamese have been jailed since the government began cracking down on dissidents in 2009 despite widespread international concern.
In releasing its annual World Report [JURIST report] last week, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] stated that Vietnam's government has been "systematically suppressing freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and persecuting those who question government policies, expose official corruption, or call for democratic alternatives to one-party rule" during the last few years of growing domestic dissatisfaction. Also last week Vietnamese authorities released and deported [JURIST report] Vietnamese-American pro-democracy activist Nguyen Quoc Quan after nine months of detention. Quan was arrested [JURIST report] on terrorism charges for planning protests in support of a banned group of US exiles. Last month Vietnam convicted [JURIST report] 14 bloggers associated with Viet Tan of subversion issued prison sentences ranging from 3 to 13 years. In September a court in Vietnam sentenced [JURIST report] a number of bloggers for anti-state propaganda for defaming the government.


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

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