JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Thursday, March 7, 2013




ICC approves delay of trial for Kenya presidential candidate
Rebecca DiLeonardo on March 7, 2013 3:13 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website; JURIST backgrounder] on Thursday agreed to delay [order, PDF; press release] the trial of Kenyan presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta and his co-defendant Francis Muthaura [case materials] until July 9. The two men are currently facing charges of crimes against humanity. Kenyatta is currently leading [AP report] the vote count in Kenya's presidential election, which took place on Monday. ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda [official profile] agreed to delay [JURIST report] the trial last month after Kenyatta's defense team argued that they needed more time to respond to evidence revealed to them at the last minute leading up to the trial. The charges against Kenyatta arise from involvement in the violence following the disputed elections in December 2007 in which 1,200 people were killed and thousands more displaced.

Last month Kenyatta and his co-defendant, former civil service chief Francis Muthaura, asked [JURIST report] the ICC to review the decision to move forward with the trial. The two Kenyans had announced [JURIST report] in December that, despite their upcoming trials, they would be running together in the next presidential election, scheduled to take place in March. In October the ICC called for complete cooperation [JURIST report] from the Kenyan government in the investigation and trial process. Also facing trial are journalist Joshua Arap Sang [case materials] and former cabinet minister William Ruto [case materials]. In June the ICC expressed its desire to start the two Kenyan trials simultaneously [JURIST report] to avoid any appearance of bias in the March 2013 presidential election.




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


Federal judge overturns Idaho abortion law
Daniel Mullen on March 7, 2013 2:28 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Judge Lynn Winmill of the US District Court for the District of Idaho [official website] on Wednesday struck down [opinion, PDF] Idaho's "fetal pain" statute, which banned most abortions after 20 weeks. The bill, called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act [text, PDF; JURIST report], was based on disputed medical evidence suggesting that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks and only permitted abortions after that time period when the mother's life was at risk. Linn McCormack was prosecuted [JURIST report] under the law in 2011 for using a combination of FDA-approved abortion pills obtained over the Internet resulting in termination of her pregnancy after the 20-week period allowed by the law. McCormick challenged the law's constitutionality, ultimately resulting in Wednesday's decision. In her opinion, Winmill struck down the law as placing an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion and as unconstitutionally vague in its criminal sanctions. Wednesday's decision is the first time a court has struck down a fetal-pain law on its merits [Reuters report].

Over the past several years, state legislatures across the country have been implementing measures affecting abortion rights, prompting legal challenges in many instances. On Wednesday the Arkansas State legislature voted to override [JURIST report] the governor's veto of the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act, which bans most abortions after 12 weeks. Last month the Alabama House of Representatives approved a bill [JURIST report] tightening regulations for abortion clinics, which critics maintain will result in the closure of many abortion clinics in the state. In January the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a Massachusetts law that established "buffer zones" for abortion clinics, which prohibits protesting within 35 feet of an abortion facility. Also in January a federal judge in Kansas ordered [JURIST report] a trial for a challenge to a state law prohibiting insurance companies from covering abortions. In December a state judge in Georgia enjoined a law [JURIST report] banning doctors from providing abortions for women more than 20 weeks into gestation. In November, Montana voters passed a referendum [JURIST report] requiring facilities and doctors to inform parents of minors before performing an abortion.




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


EU court rejects Poland appeal to alter distribution of carbon credits
Keith Herting on March 7, 2013 12:48 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The EU General Court [official website] on Thursday ruled [text] against Poland in an appeal [materials] challenging the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) [EU backgrounder] mechanism for distributing free-carbon permits. Poland had claimed that the law was inequitable in its effect as it failed to take into consideration the energy portfolio of each of the individual member states when it created its carbon-efficiency benchmarks. The ETS is a cap-and-trade system which many feel has the potential to create an economic hardship on the eastern European nation which is largely reliant on carbon-heavy coal as an energy source. In denying [Reuters report] the Polish claim, the court recognized the potential to harm those eastern nations which are largely dependent on coal but did not determine that impact was the result of an inequitable enforcement of the law.

The EU's cap-and-trade system model of limiting carbon output has created controversy both in and out of Europe. In December 2011 the EU's highest court upheld [JURIST report] carbon-dependent fines against airlines for emissions. Enforcement of penalties against airlines began in 2012 after the scheme was upheld by a lower EU court despite claims by the US which alleged that the scheme violated international treaty [JURIST reports].




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


New York lawmakers approve two-year fracking moratorium
Keith Herting on March 7, 2013 12:04 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The New York State Assembly [official website] on Wednesday approved a bill [text] imposing an over two-year ban on fracking [JURIST backgrounder], or hydraulic fracturing, in the state. The measure was passed [AP report] by a margin of 95 to 40 and would postpone any potential fracking until May 15, 2015, by which time a "comprehensive health impact assessment" can be conducted to identify potential public health impacts that may result from the process. The ban represents a continuation of a previous ban on fracking that has been in place in the state since 2008. State Assembly Speaker and co-sponsor of the bill, Sheldon Silver, laid out his case for the moratorium when he announced the legislation [official statement], reasoning that "the health and well-being of the people must always take precedence over industry profits" and that "the natural gas locked within the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale isn't going anywhere."

Fracking has been a contentious issue in the US recently. Earlier this month JURIST guest columnist Nicolas Parke debunked the rumors [JURIST op-ed] around fracking. In February JURIST guest columnist Samantha Peaslee detailed the future of fracking [JURIST op-ed] in Colorado in the wake of recent lawsuits against fracking companies in the state. In September Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection and Public Utility Commission filed a brief arguing that a recent Pennsylvania court decision which struck down portions of a law allowing the state to determine where fracking could occur was an error [JURIST report]. In July North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed a bill [SB 820 materials; JURIST report] that would have lifted the state's ban on fracking. Last May Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law [JURIST report] a bill outlawing fracking in the state. Last January the New Jersey Legislature passed an amendment to a bill that establishes a one-year ban on fracking [JURIST report]. Legislators re-introduced the bill last year after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed legislation in June 2011 that would have permanently banned fracking in New Jersey [JURIST report]. In October 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to develop standards [JURIST report] for wastewater discharge from fracking. June 2011 New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the US government [JURIST report] for its alleged failure to study the risks of fracking.




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


Former Colombia lawmaker convicted for involvement in massacre
Rebecca DiLeonardo on March 7, 2013 11:58 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A former Colombian lawmaker was found guilty on Wednesday for his involvement in a 1988 massacre that killed 43 people. Cesar Perez was convicted [UPI report] for allegedly financing the attack, which was reportedly carried out for political purposes. Negro Vladamir, one of the leaders of the attack, accused Perez of orchestrating the massacre to gain political power in the town of Segovia. Perez has not yet been sentenced but is expected to receive approximately 25-30 years.

Colombia has drawn attention from UN rights bodies several times recently. In October UN experts urged [JURIST report] Colombia to reconsider proposed constitutional reforms affecting the military criminal law. In August UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people James Anaya [official website] also called upon [JURIST report] the government of Colombia to advance its negotiations with indigenous authorities in northern Cauca regarding the military presence in the area, as well as other pressing issues. Last December the representative to Colombia for the OHCHR called for a peaceful solution [JURIST report] to the country's ongoing armed conflict involving hostages held by paramilitary rebels.




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


Berlusconi sentenced to one year in prison for releasing private wiretaps
Brandon Gatto on March 7, 2013 11:28 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A Milan court on Wednesday sentenced [video] former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] to one year in prison for publicly releasing private wiretaps in 2005. In particular, Berlusconi's sentence stems from his conviction of publishing the transcript of a tapped phone conversation in Il Giornale [media website], a national newspaper owned by his brother Paolo. The conversation in question took place between Berlusconi's biggest political rival at the time, Piero Fassino [official website, in Italian], and the head of Unipol [corporate website, in Italian], an insurance company that has since been restructured. The publication broke secrecy rules, as the conversation should have remained private due to the ongoing investigation into possible inappropriate interference in Unipol's attempt to take over Italian banking firm Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) [official website, in Italian]. The publication was widely viewed as an attempt by the former prime minister to damage Fassino and other center-left opponents. While Fassino was awarded 80,000 euros in damages, Berlusconi, whose center-right political formation threw the country into governmental chaos [Reuters report] after emerging as the second strongest in parliament in last week's Italian elections, will not be required to serve any jail time until he has exhausted the appeals process. Berlusconi continues to deny [La Repubblica report, in Italian] a connection to any wrongdoing and considers his charges the work of political opposition and judicial persecution.

Also on Wednesday the Supreme Court of Italy [official website, in Italian] upheld a ruling [Reuters report] clearing Berlusconi of tax fraud charges in connection with Mediatrade, the broadcast rights unit of his Mediaset [corporate websites, in Italian] corporation. However, he remains a defendant in several other cases. In January a Milan court set a timetable [JURIST report] for hearings in the former prime minister's underage sex trial, setting the last session of the trial for early March. There, Berlusconi is charged [JURIST report] with paying then 17-year-old dancer Karima "Ruby" El Mahroug for sex and abusing his power by asking police to release her after she was detained for an unrelated theft crime. Also that month, Milan judges rejected [JURIST report] Berlusconi's appeal to postpone his tax fraud trial until after the national elections. In January 2011, however, the Constitutional Court of Italy [official website, in Italian] held hearings and subsequently struck down [JURIST reports] portions of a law [materials, in Italian] backed by Berlusconi granting the premier and and other public officials temporary immunity from charges while in office. Despite numerous trials, Berlusconi has never actually served prison time.




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


Libya court begins trial of Gaddafi era officials
Matthew Pomy on March 7, 2013 10:24 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The trial of 40 former Libyan officials began Thursday in al-Zawiya. The charges include [Xinhua report] inciting the killing of protesters during the revolution, wasting public funds, embezzlement and abuse of power. The defendants committed these crimes as part of the former Gaddafi regime during the uprising [JURIST backgrounder] in 2011. The date of the hearing has been postponed to April 11 to allow the parties to prepare.

This is the latest in the process of prosecuting those responsible for the crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime following the uprising in Libya. Last month the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] called on Libya [JURIST report] to extradite former Gaddafi intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi [BBC profile]. In January the ICC asked Libya to address reports [JURIST report] that it planned to try Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and al-Senussi in domestic courts. In October Libyan government lawyers urged the ICC [JURIST report] to allow the men to be tried in Libya and promised that the trial would be fair. In August Saif al-Islam stated that he preferred to be tried by the ICC [JURIST report] out of fear that Libya would not try him fairly.




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


UK court rules for Apple in Samsung patent infringement case
Sung Un Kim on March 7, 2013 10:14 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A UK court on Thursday ruled in favor of Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Samsung [corporate websites]. The suit involved three patents in connection to data and information transfer technology that Samsung alleged Apple infringed. The technology allows transfers of information over the third-generation networks that are used by smartphones. In Thursday's ruling, Judge Christopher Floyd invalidated [Bloomberg report] Samsung's patents. Apple had argued that the patents at issue were invalid and that Samsung was required to license the patents under fair terms they were essential in allowing connection to third-generation networks. It is unclear whether Samsung will appeal the recent decision.

Samsung and Apple have been involved in patent disputes around the globe. Earlier this month a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California reduced [JURIST report] the amount of damages that Samsung is required to pay for infringing Apple patents. In January Koh ruled that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple's patents partially abrogating the jury verdict [JURIST reports]. However, Koh declined to overturn the jury's findings on validity and infringement and also refused to grant Samsung a new trial on grounds that the trial was allegedly manifestly unfair. Last month the Tokyo District Court rejected [JURIST report] a patent infringement claim brought by Samsung alleging that Apple stole its data transmission technology. In August the same court dismissed Apple's claim [JURIST report] against Samsung holding that latter did not violate Apple's patents of synchronizing music and video data. An appeal followed [JURIST report] two months later.




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


Arkansas legislature overrides governor's veto of 12-week abortion ban
Addison Morris on March 7, 2013 10:06 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Arkansas legislature voted Wednesday to override Governor Mike Beebe's [official website] recent veto of the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act [Act 301, PDF; materials], which bans abortions "of an unborn human individual whose heartbeat has been detected ... and is twelve (12) weeks or greater gestation." In a letter [official statement] accompanying his veto [JURIST report] of the 12-week ban, Beebe said he decided to attempt to block the bill because he believes it "blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court." Both the Arkansas Senate and House of Representatives [official websites] voted to override the veto, giving Arkansas the most restrictive abortion laws in the US. The Act provides exemptions for instances of rape, incest, major fetal conditions and when the mother's life is in danger. Doctors who perform abortions in violation of the Act are to have their licenses revoked. Pro-choice advocates, such as Planned Parenthood [official website], called Wednesday "truly ... a sad day for Arkansas women," and promised [press release] to "continue to fight these bills and stand up women in Arkansas."

Wednesday's vote comes only six days after lawmakers voted to override the governor's veto [JURIST reports] of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act [HB 1037, PDF] which bans most abortions in the state 20 weeks after conception. That law made Arkansas the eighth US state to ban or restrict abortions after 20 weeks. Similar laws restricting reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder] are currently facing legal challenges in Arizona and Georgia [JURIST reports].




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


Mexico legislature votes to remove criminal immunity for lawmakers
Maureen Cosgrove on March 7, 2013 9:21 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Mexico's Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Spanish] voted 376-56 [press release, in Spanish] on Tuesday to remove criminal immunity for federal lawmakers. The bill, which contains proposed amendments to the country's constitution, seeks to subject federal senators and deputies to the criminal justice system. The lawmakers, including high-ranking federal officials, remain protected from detention during their term in office. The bill now passes to Mexico's Senate for review.

This bill is the most recent in overarching legislative reform initiated by Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto [official website, in Spanish; BBC profile]. Last week Nieto signed into law the country's most expansive education reforms [JURIST report] in seven decades. In September the Chamber of Deputies approved a bill after 14 hours of debate that provides for a broad range of reforms to Mexico's labor market. The bill seeks to improve the transparency of Mexico's trade unions and make labor regulations more flexible.




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


Maryland Senate votes to repeal death penalty
Brandon Gatto on March 7, 2013 8:35 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Maryland Senate [official website] on Wednesday voted 27-20 [roll call vote] to repeal the death penalty, a legislative goal long sought by Governor Martin O'Malley [official website]. Passed after several days of debate, Senate Bill 276 [text, PDF] seeks to repeal "the death penalty and all provisions relating to it," and will prescribe sentences of life imprisonment for individuals convicted of first degree murder. The law [materials] also requires that, beginning in 2015, the projected $500,000 in savings as a result of the repeal will be redirected to victims of crime. The bill will now pass to the Maryland House of Delegates and, if approved, to O'Malley to be signed into law. With the repeal, Maryland would become the eighteenth US state to abolish capital punishment.

O'Malley announced in January that he would file legislation to repeal capital punishment [JURIST report] in Maryland, stating that the death penalty is expensive and ineffective. In 2008, the governor created [JURIST report] the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment [official website] after an unsuccessful attempt [JURIST report] to repeal the death penalty in 2007. Outside of Maryland, Connecticut [JURIST report] became the seventeenth state to abolish the death penalty and the fifth to do so in the previous five years, which it did last April. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 33 states retain its use, according to the Death Penalty Information Center [advocacy website]. However, California voters declined to repeal the death penalty [JURIST report] on the most recent ballot, with 47 percent of voters supporting the repeal last November.




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


Oklahoma AG petitions Supreme Court review abortion laws
Jerry Votava on March 7, 2013 8:19 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Oklahoma Attorney General E Scott Pruitt [official profile] on Tuesday filed a petition [text, PDF; press release] asking the US Supreme Court [official website] to review a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court [official website] which struck down two state laws limiting abortion rights for physicians and patients. In December the Oklahoma Supreme Court held HB 2780 and HB 1970 [opinions] to be unconstitutional [JURIST report], finding that the laws infringed upon women's constitutional reproductive rights and interfered with doctor's abilities to provide safe and efficacious treatment to patients, including prescribing an "off-label" use of drugs known to have abortion-inducing effects. In his petition, Pruitt attacked the Oklahoma Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Supreme Court's precedents in abortion cases. Pruitt wrote:
Casey reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade ... that a woman has a right to an abortion "before viability ... without undue interference from the State," but it also re-affirmed states' "legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child." ... Properly interpreted, then, Casey dictates the opposite result reached in the decision below: laws like Oklahoma's medical abortion regulation are permissible. ... By failing to conduct the analysis Casey requires the Oklahoma Supreme Court perverted part of the "essential holding" of Roe.
Pruitt also asserted that the Oklahoma laws did not ban the use of abortion inducing drugs, but merely ensured proper procedures for their use would be followed.

Oklahoma has been at the center of controversy recently regarding reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder]. The Oklahoma law restricting the use of abortion-inducing drugs was scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2011, but was temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October. In April 2011 Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed into law [JURIST report] a bill prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The law allows abortions past the 20-week mark only in certain extenuating circumstances where the mother faces death or serious injury. A doctor who performs an abortion in violation of the time limit would be subject to criminal prosecution for a felony, but the woman undergoing the procedure would not face a penalty. Last year an Oklahoma state judge extended a temporary injunction [JURIST report] blocking enforcement of HB 2780.




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


Guantanamo detainees face harsh conditions, hunger strike: defense lawyers
Jerry Votava on March 7, 2013 7:17 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Defense lawyers for terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website] sent a letter [text, PDF] to Rear Admiral John Smith Jr. [official profile] describing harsh conditions faced by the detainees and indicated that the detainees have begun to protest the conditions, including participating in a hunger strike. The letter alleged that "camp authorities have been confiscating detainees' personal items, including blankets, sheets, towels, mats, razors, toothbrushes, books, family photos, religious CDs, and letters, including legal mail; and restricting their exercise, seemingly without provocation or cause." They further allege that searches of their Korans have been conducted in a desecrating manner. As a result of these and other practices, the detainees have begun to protest, including through a hunger strike which is in its third week. The letter indicates that some of the detainees are suffering health consequences as a result of the protests. The lawyers called on Smith, the commanding officer of the facility, to address the concerns listed and to respond with a description of the policy changes. The lawyers learned of these practices and protests after being permitted to visit [JURIST report] the detention center by a judge in February.

The procedures and policies regarding the 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder] military commission hearings have faced significant scrutiny. In February lawyers for the US Navy contended [JURIST report] that surveillance equipment deployed throughout the Guantanamo Bay detention center was not used to breach attorney-client privilege. Earlier in the month a military judge ordered the removal [JURIST report] of any monitoring system that censors the public broadcast of the hearings. In September, a federal judge rejected [JURIST report] new restrictions on the ability of lawyers representing detainees who have had their habeas corpus challenges denied or dismissed to access their clients. In February 2012 the chief US military tribunal judge ruled [JURIST report] that the content of attorney-client mail inspected at the Guantanamo Bay prison is confidential and may not be released.




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


Holder urges Congress to confront gun control
Matthew Pomy on March 7, 2013 7:15 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] spoke before Congress on Wednesday urging [text] them to pass gun control legislation. In a hearing [materials] before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary [official website], Holder requested that Congress consider universal background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and military style weapons. He also suggested passing tougher penalties for weapons trafficking. Holder is echoing President Barack Obama's and Vice President Joe Biden's calls for "common-sense" measures of restricting access to guns in order to prevent further gun violence. He also called upon the Senate to confirm Todd Jones as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Gun control has long been a contentious issue in the United States. The constitutionality of an assault weapons ban was recently discussed [JURIST op-ed] by JURIST guest columnist Nicholas Johnson of the Fordham University School of Law. Earlier this month, the Maryland Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that would make it harder to get a gun license. In mid-January, on the one-month anniversary of the Newtown shooting, Obama announced his signing of 23 executive orders [JURIST report] intended to strengthen existing gun laws, as well as urging Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The previous day New York Governor Andrew Cuomo [official website] signed legislation [JURIST report] intended to impose tighter restrictions on gun and ammunition sales, banning any magazine that can hold more than seven rounds and implementing instant background checks on all ammunition purchases at the time of sale.




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


Mali rebels call for ICC investigation
Michael Haggerson on March 7, 2013 6:59 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Malian Tuareg rebels on Tuesday called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Malian government forces during the recent conflict. Azawad National Liberation Movement (MNLA) announced that it has asked the ICC to investigate [AFP report] the alleged use of torture, summary executions and forced disappearances while attempting to put down the rebellion. The MNLA was initially aligned with Islamists, but the two groups fell into conflict after the Islamists began imposing Sharia Law throughout the region. The Malian government has been accused of committing war crimes against people perceived to be collaborating with the Islamist rebels, including the Tuareg. France announced on Tuesday that dozens of Islamist rebels have been killed [AFP report] during the conflict, and Chad claims that they killed one of the rebels' major commanders, Mokhtar Belmokhtar. An official for Isamist militant organization al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb also announced on Monday that another prominent militant, Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, was killed in a French bombing raid in northern Mali. France has deemed both of these reports to be unconfirmed at this point in order to avoid the appearance of celebration and protect the remaining French hostages in Mali.

The Malian government allegedly denies knowledge of these acts of violence targeting particular ethnic groups amidst scrutiny from international sources. Last month Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged the Malian government to prosecute soldiers [JURIST report] who participate in violence toward suspected Islamist rebels and supporters. Earlier that month the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] confirmed sending a four-person team to investigate [JURIST report] the claims of violence. ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda [official profile] also announced an investigation [JURIST report] into possible war crimes in January. In July six West African nations requested [JURIST report] for an ICC investigation into war crimes in Mali.




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

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


LATEST OP-ED

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org