Paper Chase

Vatican prosecutor says bishops must uphold laws to protect victims of sexual abuse

2012-02-08T16:08:31Z

[JURIST] The Vatican [official website] sex crimes prosecutor warned bishops on Wednesday that they must follow rules in place for protecting victims of sexual abuse in the church or they risk being sanctioned. Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the church appointed prosecutor in the ongoing clergy sex abuse [JURIST news archive] scandals, issued his warning at a symposium of bishops, the purpose of which was to begin formulating guidelines to keep children safe. In February 2010, the Vatican unveiled church procedures [JURIST report] for dealing with sexual abuse cases, titled the "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations", which set up a multi-tiered system of enforcement, including local bishops and the Pope himself. Church law provides for sanctioning those who cover-up or ignore abuse as negligent or malicious in performing their job duties.

Clergy abuse has become a contentious legal issue in recent years, as the Vatican has come under intense scrutiny related to allegations of sexual abuse of children by local church officials. In November a UK court ruled [JURIST report] that Catholic priests qualify as employees, meaning that the Catholic church could be held liable for sexual abuse by clergy members. In September Amnesty International [advocacy website] claimed [JURIST report] that clergy members' abuse of Irish children amounted to torture. The report, titled In Plain Sight [text, PDF] called special attention to "people in positions of power" who "ignore their responsibility to act." Also in September, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website] filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] against Vatican officials, including Pope Benedict XVI, for widespread sexual abuse and subsequent concealment of thousands of incidents. Since 2007, the Church has settled over 500 cases [JURIST news archive] of clergy abuse in the U.S. alone, totaling more than $900 million.

South Carolina sues federal government over blocked voter ID law

2012-02-08T15:17:40Z

[JURIST] South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson [official website] filed suit [complaint, PDF] Tuesday against the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] over its ruling that barred South Carolina from enforcing its voter identification law [R54 materials]. The DOJ rejected the law [JURIST report] in December on the grounds that it was discriminatory. It has authority to do so under the Voting Rights Act [Cornell LII backgrounder], which allows it to screen new voter laws in states with a history of discriminatory voter practices. In the filing, the attorney general alleges that the photo identification requirement will not disenfranchise voters.

South Carolina's photo identification law only places upon the voter an affirmative responsibility to obtain an approved photo identification card and bring it to the polls. ... Because these photo identification requirements are not a bar to voting but a temporary inconvenience no greater than the inconvenience inherent in voting itself, they do not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority.

The complaint cited a 2008 Supreme Court decision which upheld a similar Indiana law [JURIST report]. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] has praised [press release] the DOJ for its actions in blocking the law. The advocacy group alleges that the new law would have prevented thousands of eligible voters from exercising their right.

There are now 30 US states that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 14 states that require photo ID, but the issue remains controversial. In Wisconsin, several civil rights groups filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in December challenging the new voter identification law [2011 Wisconsin Act 23]. In June 2011, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon [official website] vetoed [JURIST report] a law requiring persons to present photo identification at voting booth. In March 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a law requiring voters to present one of six government-issued photo identifications in order to vote. In contrast, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a portion of Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration in October 2010. In October 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could enforce its voter ID law [JURIST report], which requires voters to show government-issued voter ID cards [JURIST news archive] at the polls.

Berlusconi facing new trial on wiretap charges

2012-02-08T14:46:39Z

[JURIST] A judge in Milan ruled Tuesday that former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archives] will stand trial for publicly releasing a secret wiretap in 2005. The prosecution alleges that Berlusconi published the transcript of a tapped phone conversation [BBC report] in Il Giornale [media website, in Italian], a national newspaper owned by his brother. 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, 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 Berlusconi to damage Fassino and other center-left opponents. During the hearing Tuesday Berlusconi told the court that he had not listened to the tape at the time, nor had he ordered its release. This will be Berlusconi's fourth pending trial, as he is already facing charges of embezzlement, tax fraud and paying for sex with an underage prostitute [JURIST reports]. The wiretap trial is set to begin March 15.

Berlusconi, who resigned as prime minister in November, has been a defendant in nearly 50 cases. In July an Italian appeals court ordered Fininvest [corporate website], a holding company owned by Berlusconi, to pay €560 million in damages and fees to Compagnie Industriali Riunite (CIR) Group [corporate website]. The complaint stemmed from Fininvest's 1991 acquisition of Italian publishing company Mondadori [corporate website], during which Fininvest bribed a judge in exchange for favorable decisions. In April neither Berlusconi nor the alleged prostitute attended the beginning of the prostitution trial [JURIST report], and the court adjourned after only 10 minutes. Both parties deny having a sexual relationship and Berlusconi has denied any wrongdoing, calling the accusations groundless. In January 2011 the Italian Constitutional Court [official website, in Italian] held hearings and subsequently struck down [JURIST reports] portions of a immunity law [materials, in Italian] backed by Berlusconi that would have granted the premier and other public officials temporary amnesty from any charges while holding office.

EU court limits privacy rights for public figures

2012-02-07T19:46:41Z

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] issued two rulings [press release] on Tuesday upholding the right of the media to report on celebrities and limiting celebrities' right to privacy. In Axel Springer AG v. Germany [judgment], the court examined whether a German actor's right to privacy was violated when a paper published a newspaper article and photos of his arrest for illegal drug possession at a public festival. The court determined that an injunction restricting publication of articles and photos of the actor was a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF], which protects freedom of expression. The court determined that the actor was sufficiently well known to qualify as a public figure, which gives the public a greater interest in being informed about his arrest and the proceedings against him. Additionally, the court determined that the actor had a decreased expectation of privacy due to the fact that his arrest occurred at a public event and because he had previously released details of his private life through the media. In Van Hannover v. Germany [judgment], the court examined whether the right of privacy of members of the royal family of Monaco had been violated when two magazines published pictures of Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband that were taken without their consent during a ski vacation. The court ruled that publication of the pictures did not constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to respect for private and family life. The court held that the pictures and accompanying text added to a debate of general interest about the royal family of Monaco, and that members of that family must be treated as public figures. In both cases, the court acknowledged the need to balance the right to privacy against the right of the media to freedom of expression, but also indicated that privacy rights are diminished when individuals can be considered public figures.

The ECHR rulings could have broad implications going forward [NYT report] and may play a role in the UK as the British government investigates [JURIST report] whether tougher media regulations are necessary. In July, British Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced the formation of a panel to investigate journalism practices in the nation, after allegations of "phone hacking" [JURIST report] surfaced in the British media. The panel is investigating the media and reporters' relationship with police and politicians, as well as the tactics media agents use to get information. While the UK judges are currently split [JURIST report] over the role ECHR decisions should play in the British court system, the ECHR's ruling could limit media reforms proposed by the panel, particularly regarding coverage of celebrities.

UNICEF claims bloodshed in Syria has led to hundreds of child deaths

2012-02-07T18:37:07Z

[JURIST] The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) [official website] reported Tuesday that the nearly 11 months of violence in Syria have led to the deaths and injuries of hundreds of children [press release]. In particular, UNICEF spokeswoman Marixie Mercado said that, "[a]s of the end of January, 400 children are dead and more than 400 have been detained." Mercado added that UNICEF has also received reports of arbitrary child arrests, torture and sexual abuse while in detention. Although she did not reveal the source of the reports, Mercado declared that the figures came from Syrian human rights groups "that we find to be credible." She also said that reporting by international media inside the city of Homs has contributed to UNICEF's awareness. Specifically, some reports indicated that Syrian troops have increased their assault on Homs by using artillery and shelling against civilians as part of their broader plan to quash a public pro-democracy movement that began last year. UNICEF believes that the shelling of civilian neighborhoods is undoubtedly causing further suffering for children [UN News Centre report]. "This must stop," said UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake. "Even one child killed in the violence is one child too many." UNICEF does not currently have access to the affected areas of Homs, but has urged Syrian authorities to allow help to those who need it.

Last week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] accused [JURIST report] Syria's army and security officers of engaging in the torture of children [press release]. The allegations stemmed from HRW's documentation of cases in which children were reportedly detained, tortured, and shot in their homes, as well as prior findings that the Syrian government has been involved in torturing and killing civilian protesters. HRW has subsequently urged the UN Security Council [official website] to take action and pressure the Syrian government to end the inhumane violence against children still allegedly occurring in homes, streets, and schools. Last month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] demanded [JURIST report] Syria's president Bashar al-Assad [BBC backgrounder] to end the violence against its citizens and strive to establish democracy. Ban previously condemned [JURIST report] Syrian government leaders and violent protesters in December for the continuous bloodshed within the country. The violence in Syria has also been decried by the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee and the Arab League [JURIST reports]. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] has reported [UN report] that more than 5,000 people have died since the anti-government protests in Syria began last March.

Arizona files opening brief with Supreme Court on immigration law

2012-02-07T18:30:43Z

[JURIST] Attorneys for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] filed an opening brief [text, PDF] with the US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday, asking the court to lift an injunction that has blocked many contentious provisions of a state immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive] from taking effect. SB 1070, passed in April 2010, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires police officers to question an individual's immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" to believe an individual is in the country illegally. In its brief, Arizona argued that its controversial immigration law is necessary because illegal immigration poses a severe threat to the state's well-being and Congress has been negligent in its enforcement of federal immigration laws:

The result [of lax federal enforcement] has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona. Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the nation's illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona. ... This flood of unlawful cross-border traffic, and the accompanying influx of illegal drugs, dangerous criminals and highly vulnerable persons, have resulted in massive problems for Arizona's citizens and government, leaving them to bear a seriously disproportionate share of the burden of an already urgent national problem.

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case [JURIST report], entitled Arizona v. United States, to determine whether or not SB 1070 is preempted by federal law. Oral argument is scheduled for April 25.

SB 1070 has had a polarizing effect since its passage. Legislatures in states such as Utah, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Indiana [JURIST reports] have passed immigration laws in the past two years that mirror Arizona's. While SB 1070 has spawned many new state laws in its image, it has also attracted sharp criticism. In July 2010, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed a brief [JURIST report] urging the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] to block SB 1070 from taking effect. The ABA's brief came on the heels of a US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] lawsuit challenging the SB 1070's constitutionality. In May 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a suit seeking to block implementation of the new law [JURIST report]. Earlier in May 2010, a group of UN human rights experts argued that SB 1070 may violate international standards [JURIST report].

ICTY sentences former case manager to 12 months for contempt

2012-02-07T18:20:11Z

[JURIST] Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday rendered a judgment [summary, PDF] against Jelena Rasic, sentencing her to 12 months imprisonment on contempt charges. The judgment came following the acceptance of a plea agreement [JURIST] last week. Rasic was the former case manager for Bosnian war criminal Milan Lukic [judgment, PDF]. She pleaded guilty [amended indictment, PDF] last week to five counts of contempt against the tribunal last year. It was alleged that she "knowingly and willfully interfered with the Tribunal's administration of justice" by obtaining false witness statements in the Lukic case in exchange of 1,000 euros. The court stated that Rasic's conduct was serious in that it directly interfered with the administration of justice having far-reaching consequences to the international criminal jurisdiction:

With respect to aggravating circumstances, the Chamber notes the position of trust in which Jelena Rasic found herself in at the time of her crimes. Members of Defence teams are obligated to act conscientiously with full respect of the law and applicable rules, something which certainly also holds true for any professional involved in the proceedings before the Tribunal. As officers of justice, they must at all times be aware of their duties and must never allow themselves to affect others, such as prospective witnesses, in a criminal manner. However, Jelena Rasic did just that.

The court also considered numerous mitigating factors such as the possibility that Rasic was merely following directions, her relative young age and inexperience, her guilty plea and the fact that she is the only female detainee in the detention unit. Consequently, the court suspended the last eight months of the sentence as well as the 78 days Rasic already served in detention.

The ICTY is currently facing a suit [JURIST report] initiated by Vojislav Seselj [official website, in Serbian; JURIST news archive], a former Serb nationalist politician and war crimes suspect, for unreasonable delay in his trial. He claims USD $2.6 million in damages. He was charged with three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes, and in October he was sentenced to 18 months [JURIST report] for releasing information of protected witnesses. In December the ICTY convicted a former Yugoslav intelligence officer [JURIST report] on charges of contempt for failing to testify. Court argued that such failure was against the interest of justice. In the same month, former Serbian general pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to charges for executing more than 30 Muslim prisoners. Earlier of the month, ICTY with International Criminal Tribune for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] reported [JURIST report] to the UN Security Council [official website] their progress in tracking and arresting fugitives for the tribunals' mandates.

Federal judge allows enforcement of Texas abortion law

2012-02-07T18:18:13Z

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Texas [official website] ruled [order, PDF] Monday that Texas can begin enforcing a state law [HB 15, PDF] that requires women to have a sonogram before undergoing an abortion [JURIST news archive]. In his ruling, Judge Sam Sparks noted that he was ordering the enforcement of the law following a ruling [JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website], lifting an injunction [opinion, PDF] of the law and ordering immediate enforcement. Sparks criticized the Fifth Circuit's ruling, stating that the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights [American-Statesman report] of physicians by improperly limiting their ability to exercise their medical judgment. According to Sparks, the law severely limits the right to free speech in the abortion context, and essentially makes physicians a mouthpiece of the state [Houston Chronicle report]. Following the ruling issued by Sparks, the Texas Department of State Health Services [official website] released a letter to providers [text, PDF] indicating that enforcement would begin immediately and informing them of their responsibilities under the law. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website], which filed the challenge to the law on behalf of a class of doctors, has filed a petition requesting that the Fifth Circuit rehear the case en banc. In response to Sparks' ruling, CRR President Nancy Northup stated [press release], "[i]t is a terrible injustice that Judge Sparks could not rule in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of Texas doctors because of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision." Northup also urged the Fifth Circuit to apply Sparks' reasoning if the case is reheard en banc.

Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] signed the measure into law in May, but it was blocked in August after a challenge [JURIST reports] from the CRR. Laws similar to the Texas law have also been considered in other states. Early this month, the Virginia Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound before the procedure. The law would impose requirements including the audio provision of fetal heartbeat and a determination of the gestational age of the fetus. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March 2010 the Supreme Court of Oklahoma [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.

Ninth Circuit strikes down California same-sex marriage ban

2012-02-07T18:01:50Z

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that Proposition 8 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], California's ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder], is unconstitutional. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the voter-approved [JURIST report] constitutional amendment violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses [Cornell LII backgrounders] of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. According to the court:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. ... Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws for this sort."

The court also found that Proposition 8 supporters had standing to appeal and dismissed a motion to vacate the judgment below over claims of judicial bias. Judge NR Smith dissented, finding that Proposition 8 is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. An appeal is expected to the full Ninth Circuit and eventually to the US Supreme Court. It is unclear if and when same-sex marriages will resume in California.

Last week the Ninth Circuit ruled that videos from the Proposition 8 trial must remain sealed [JURIST report]. The court heard arguments in December on whether the video recordings should be released to the public and whether the district court should have vacated Judge Vaughn Walker's original ruling [JURIST reports] because he later revealed that he was in a same-sex relationship. The Ninth Circuit initially heard arguments on Proposition 8's constitutionality in December 2010, but then asked the California Supreme Court [JURIST reports] to rule on whether defendants had standing to appeal. The high court ruled in November that they did have standing [JURIST report].

ICJ judges elect new president and vice president

2012-02-07T17:21:30Z

[JURIST] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] on Monday elected its new president and vice president [press release, PDF], who will each serve a term of three years. Judge Peter Tomka [official profile] of Slovakia will serve as president. Tomka, who has been vice president of the ICJ since 2009, has also worked for the Slovakian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has held several UN positions, including being a member of the UN International Law Commission [official websites]. Judge Bernardo Sepulveda-Amor [official profile] of Mexico will serve as vice president. Sepulveda-Amor has been a member of the ICJ since 2006 and was previously an Ambassador of Mexico to the US, the UK and Ireland, worked as the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations [official website] and has held numerous UN positions. The ICJ, located in The Hague, is the UN's highest court and settles disputes between governments and issues advisory opinions on topics presented by UN bodies. The court consists of 15 judges elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council [official websites]. No two judges can come from the same home country, and efforts are taken to ensure that the primary world legal systems are represented.

The ICJ is currently reviewing 13 cases. Last week, the court ruled [JURIST report] that Germany has immunity from claims brought in foreign courts by victims of the Nazi regime. The court found that a 2008 decision by Italy's Supreme Court [JURIST report] violated Germany's sovereign rights by allowing an Italian national to seek reparations in response to his deportation in 1944. Germany appealed this decision to the ICJ, which heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in September 2011. The ruling by the ICJ is final and binding, effectively ending thousands of reparations claims against Germany. In December, the ICJ ruled that Greece wrongly blocked [JURIST report] the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website] in a dispute over the use of the name "Macedonia." Greece objects to FYROM's use of "Macedonia" out of concern that the country will use the moniker to make claims to regions of Northern Greece [JURIST comment] that also are known by the name Macedonia. The ICJ order may have been a largely symbolic victory for FYROM because the court did not sanction Greece, nor did it order the country to refrain from taking similar action in the future.

Maldives president resigns after protests over detained judge

2012-02-07T15:39:44Z

[JURIST] Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed resigned on Tuesday after weeks of protests over the detainment of senior criminal court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, who was arrested last month for corruption [JURIST report]. Nasheed, the country's first democratically-elected president, stepped down [press release], saying in a public address: "I believe if I continue as the President of the Maldives, the people of the country would suffer more. ... I wish the Maldives would have a consolidated democracy. I wish for justice to be established." His vice president, Mohammed Waheed Hassan [official profile], took over the presidency Tuesday afternoon, vowing to uphold the rule of law [press release], protect the Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] and prevent any attempted retaliation against former leaders. Hassan, who has worked as a UNICEF [official website] official, had called for the Mohamed's release [CSM report] while serving as vice president. Mohamed was arrested in an unprecedented move by the military, following his ruling to release a government critic. Local media on Tuesday evening reported that Mohamed had been released [Minivan report].

The Maldives has faced ongoing unrest since Mohamed's arrest, as well as other political struggles following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. Last month, the UN called for Mohamed's release days after the Maldives Minister of Foreign Affairs [official website] asked the UN to help them resolve [JURIST reports] what they called a judicial system failure. The same week, a group of Maldives lawyers submitted [JURIST report] to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] the case, calling Mohamed's continued detention a violation of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance [text]. In the country's first democratic elections in 2008, Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], ending his 30-year rule. During today's street protests, some worried that the violence may have been a coup attempt by Gayoon, but the government has denied [Reuters report] such claims.

UN reports progress in ending female genital mutilation

2012-02-07T14:37:37Z

[JURIST] The UN released its annual report [text, PDF] Monday on trends in female genital mutilation (FGM) [WHO backgrounder; JURIST news archive], revealing that approximately 2,000 African communities have renounced the practice since last year [JURIST report]. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) [official websites] compiled the report to fulfill a joint-mission to accelerate the voluntary abandonment of practicing FGM in Africa. The report detailed that two nations in particular have taken to ending FGM through the rule of law. In Sudan, several states criminalized FGM, while Kenya passed the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2011 [text, DOC]. In turn, Kenya saw the largest overall decrease in acts of FGM. Mauritania [BBC backgrounder] is the only country that saw an increase in FGM [press release].

As many as 140 million women and girls worldwide have undergone some form of FGM, which is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) [official website] as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons." Efforts in several countries, however, have sought to eliminate or reduce the practice. In 2009, Uganda unanimously outlawed FGM [JURIST report] and imposed harsh penalties anyone who conducts the procedure to face imprisonment. In 2010, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on the government of Iraqi Kurdistan [JURIST report] to outlaw female genital mutilation and to develop a comprehensive legislative plan to reduce FGM in the region.

Italy appeals court orders release of former Guantanamo detainee

2012-02-07T13:52:58Z

[JURIST] The Court of Appeals in Milan on Monday announced that they will overturn a lower court's verdict on Tunisian former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] detainee Mohamed Riadh Ben Nasri [NYT materials]. Nasri was convicted of terrorism association two years ago, after he was transferred from Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report] to stand trial in Italy. He was sentenced to six years in prison [JURIST report] for recruiting martyrs to commit acts of terrorism. Nasri and his lawyer alleged that he was tortured extensively [la Repubblica report, in Italian] while being detained by US forces. It is unknown if this influenced the court's decision, as Nasri contended that he was beaten until he admitted he was part of al Qaeda. The court also upheld the sentence of Tlili Lazar under similar charges. Reasoning behind the two decisions will be released in the next 30 days.

In April, Italy deported a different Tunisian national [JURIST report] and former Guantanamo Bay detainee for his connections to an extremist group that had planned various acts of terrorism in the country. Abdel Ben Mabrouk was transferred to Italy in 2009 in the same group as Nasri, part of US efforts to shut down the prison at Guantanamo. Despite criticisms, Guantanamo Bay remains open and an active detainment center for US prisoners. Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed disappointment that the US government has failed to close the detention facility. President Barack Obama ordered the facility closed by January 2010, but congressional opposition and administrative setbacks [JURIST reports] prevented the administration from meeting the deadline.

Obama signs order imposing stricter sanctions on Iran

2012-02-06T19:08:34Z

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama [official website] signed an executive order [text] on Monday imposing strict sanctions on Iran as part of an effort to enforce a bill he signed into law in December 2011. The bill, National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) [SB 1867, PDF], allows for sanctions such as those ordered by Obama to be imposed on Iran. In a letter he sent to Congress, Obama explained [statement] that the sanctions were necessary because of the misleading practices of Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran, which are alleged to employ practices involving the concealment of forbidden transactions and the placement of inadequate anti-money laundering protocols. The sanctions block any property of Iran or its banks that fall under US jurisdiction. Reports have indicated that the sanctions are an attempt to convince Iran to disassemble its nuclear program [AFP report] by placing a strain on its already struggling economy. Sanctions may also be imposed on other foreign banks that conduct business with the Central Bank of Iran.

The NDAA was not signed into law [JURIST report] without controversy. According to Obama, his administration will implement the controversial provisions, including that saying "all necessary and appropriate force" may be used to detain those suspected of terrorism, in a manner which will provide the maximum measure of flexibility. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vigorously chastised the President stating that the statute is dangerous due to its lack of temporal or geographic limitations. Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December. Earlier in December, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved [JURIST report] a provision in the NDAA that gives the military complete control and custody over terror suspects. Shortly before the SASC's decision, the ACLU issued a report [pdf] claiming that the US is diminishing its "core values" [JURIST report] with regard to various counterterrorism measures put in place during the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks.

UK court sets bail for Muslim cleric Abu Qatada

2012-02-06T17:42:06Z

[JURIST] Muslim cleric Abu Qatada [BBC profile] was granted bail Monday by a Special Immigration Appeals Commission [official website] in the UK. He made his application for bail after winning an appeal [JURIST report] in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] to avoid deportation to his native Jordan. A court in Jordan previously found him guilty in absentia [Reuters report] of two bomb plots. The ECHR ruled in January that he could not be deported because it is questionable as to whether he would receive a fair trial due to some evidence possibly being obtained by torture. Qatada has been described as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe," and UK officials believe he should be kept in prison for national security reasons. Qatada has never formally been charged with an offense, and he has been in and out of custody either in prison or some form of house arrest. He will again be released on house arrest.

In February 2009, a five-judge panel of the UK's Law Lords ruled unanimously that Qatada could be deported [JURIST report] to Jordan despite fears he might be tortured upon his arrival. This decision overruled an April 2008 decision by the Court of Appeal blocking [JURIST report] deportation. Qatada was originally ordered deported [JURIST report] in February 2007. He was expected to be one of the first terror suspects to be deported under the UK's 2005 extradition oversight agreement [JURIST report] with Jordan.