| PAPER CHASE ARCHIVE |  
|
| Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective. |
|
|
 |
|
|
 Legal news from Friday, July 03, 2009 |
|
Friday, July 03, 2009 |
British embassy staff facing Iran trial for allegedly provoking protests
Steve Czajkowski at 11:56 AM ET
[JURIST] Iranian employees at the British Embassy in Iran [official website] will face trial over accusations they contributed to the political protests that followed Iran's recent disputed presidential election [BBC backgrounder] according to statements [Bloomberg report] made Friday by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of Iran's Guardian Council for the Constitution [official website, in Persian]. While Jannati did not state the official charges the staff may face, he did say that confessions had been made [AP report]. Nine embassy employees were arrested [CNN report] last month following protests over the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], but seven have been released. Jannati's comments drew the ire of much of the European community, and European Union (EU) nations are currently considering [NYT report] a British proposal to withdraw all diplomats from Iran. Later Friday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband [official profile] said in a statement [press release] that the British government was seeking clarification of the issue, and rejected claims that its embassy staff played a role in the protests.
The post-election protests reportedly resulted in at least 17 deaths and hundreds of arrests [JURIST report]. Iranian authorities have said that those arrested would be dealt with by the courts [Reuters report]. Human rights groups have characterized the arrests as political repression [JURIST report], saying that Iranian authorities are using the protests to "engage in what appears to be a major purge of reform-oriented individuals."
Link |
|
e-mail |
subscribe |
 |
latest newscast |
archive |
 Facebook page |
© JURIST
Liberia truth commission urges war crimes prosecutions in special court
Bhargav Katikaneni at 9:56 AM ET
[JURIST] Liberia's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) [official website] urged Thursday that several one-time military and political leaders be prosecuted in a special Liberian court for war crimes. Those named include ex-president Charles Taylor [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], now on trial at The Hague, and Prince Y. Johnson [BBC profile], a senator elected in 2005. The commission made the recommendation in a new report [text; PDF] detailing atrocities committed during the country's two recent civil wars. The commission called for the Liberian government to set up an "Extraordinary Criminal Tribunal for Liberia" and prosecute all those persons listed as war criminals by the TRC. Prince Johnson has said [AP report] that an amnesty law passed in 2005 forbids the government from prosecuting him for crimes committed during the civil wars.
The TRC also said that those recommended for prosecution be barred from holding elected office for 30 years. Initially, the report had included the name of current Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf [BBC profile] before quickly backtracking [VOA Report] and removing her name from the report. The TRC held its first public hearings[JURIST report] in January and indicated then [JURIST report] that it would be recommending the creation of a war crimes court. Taylor, the commission's top target, is currently being prosecuted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCL) [official website] but he may be released [JURIST report] due to a lack of funds to continue the proceedings.
Link |
|
e-mail |
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page |
© JURIST
Florida high court rules governor cannot delay judicial appointment for diversity
Steve Czajkowski at 9:45 AM ET
[JURIST] The Florida Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion text, PDF] on Thursday that Republican Governor Charlie Christ [official profile] could not delay a decision on filling a vacancy in Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal [official website] in order to consider more diverse candidates. In November, Crist was provided [press release] a list candidates by the Judicial Nominating Commission of Fifth District Court of Appeal (JNC) [Committee list] in order to fill the vacancy resulting from the retirement of Judge Robert J. Pleus [official profile], due to age. Crist rejected the initial list, and requested the JNC reconvene to review other applicants, in particular three African-Americans. When the JNC resubmitted the same list of candidates, Crist did not make an appointment. The Supreme Court held that Crist's actions were unconstitutional.
In its decision, the court concluded that the Florida Constitution [text] requires Crist to make a decision from the candidates approved by the JNC, and the decision must be within the constitutionally specified 60 day period:The plain language of article V, section 11(c), mandates that the Governor, upon receipt of the certified list of nominees from a judicial nominating commission, make an appointment from that list within sixty days to fill the judicial vacancy... we note the absence of any language granting the Governor authority to reject the JNC’s certified list of nominees or to extend the time in which the appointment for judicial office must be made.
[A]rticle V, section 11(c), imposes a clear and indisputable legal duty upon the Governor in his exercise of appointing judicial nominees to act within sixty days of receiving the certified list of nominees... In so holding, we reject the proposition that the Governor’s failure to act within the mandated time frame obviates that duty. To hold otherwise would render the constitutional provision nugatory. The suit was brought by Pleus, seeking a writ of mandamus in order to force the Governor to make a choice from the original list. The initial list provided by the JNC was made up of six candidates out of a pool of twenty-six. All of the candidates approved by the JNC were white [Miami Herald report], four of whom are male, two are female.
Link |
|
e-mail |
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page |
© JURIST
Israel, Hamas committed Gaza war crimes: Amnesty International report
Benjamin Hackman at 7:22 AM ET
[JURIST] Both Hamas and Israeli forces committed war crimes [news release] during fighting in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, according to Amnesty International (AI). A report [text, PDF] issued by Amnesty Thursday alleges that Israeli attacks killed 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children. The report says Israel is bound by the international human rights treaties it has ratified, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) [text] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [text]. Human rights obligations allegedly breached during the conflict include respect for the right to life (ICCPR, Article 6), the right to adequate food and housing (ICESCR, Article 11), and the right to education (ICESCR, Article 13). An AI researcher said that Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups committed war crimes when they fired rockets into southern Israel, killing three. Israel Defense Forces [official website] said AI’s report seemed “unbalanced” [news release]. Hamas has criticized [Haaretz report] AI's report as "unfair."
In December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] condemned [statement text] what she called Israel’s “disproportionate use of force” against Hamas targets in Gaza [JURIST report]. Pillay's call followed two days of Israeli airstrikes that killed 270 people and wounded more than 600, including many civilians, according to a UN report [news release]. In April, Israel announced [JURIST report] it would not comply with a UN Human Rights Council [official website] investigation into fighting [BBC backgrounder] in the Gaza Strip [BBC backgrounder]. AI then accused Israel of war crimes [JURIST report], citing the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas.
Link |
|
e-mail |
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page |
© JURIST
Italy senate passes law criminalizing illegal immigration
Benjamin Hackman at 2:12 AM ET
[JURIST] Italy’s Senate [official website, in Italian] voted 157-124 Thursday to pass a controversial law making illegal immigration a crime [materials, in Italian], punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros. The law also increases from two months to six [AKI report] the amount of time law enforcement officials may detain suspected illegal immigrants before deporting them. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [official profile, in Italian] has supported the bill [Corriere della Sera report, in Italian] as important for promoting public safety. The Catholic church opposes [ANSA report] the law, which the church believes punishes the basic human right of migration. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] has also opposed [news release] the measure. Italy's Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Italian] approved the bill [JURIST report] in May.
Illegal immigration is a growing problem [BBC report] in Italy, where about 36,000 illegal immigrants arrived by boat last year. In November, UN human rights experts expressed concern [JURIST report] over Italy's treatment of detained migrants and asylum seekers. While the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] said [UN press release] it was concerned about the facilities in which Italy holds irregular migrants and asylum seekers, UN experts also said Italy's criminal justice system boasts strong due process guarantees against arbitrary detentions.
Link |
|
e-mail |
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page |
© JURIST
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|
| SYNDICATION | |
|
|
Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
|
| E-MAIL | |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
