[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] Wednesday affirmed [opinion, PDF] a district court's dismissal of a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] against a Boeing subsidiary in connection with its alleged role in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] extraordinary rendition program [JURIST news archive]. The plaintiffs, Binyam Mohamed [JURIST news archive], Abou Elkassim Britel, Ahmed Agiza, Mohamed Farag Ahmaad Bashmilah and Bisher al-Rawi, alleged that San Diego-based Jeppesen Dataplan [corporate website] knowingly aided in the rendition and subsequent torture of terror suspects by the CIA. Before Jeppesen could file an answer to the original complaint, the Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened [JURIST report] and asserted the state secrets privilege [JURIST news archive], arguing that fact-finding in the case could jeopardize national security. The district court dismissed the case and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned [JURIST reports] the ruling on appeal. The DOJ then asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case with a full panel, and was granted an en banc rehearing [JURIST reports]. The original Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the state secrets privilege can only be invoked in relation to established evidence in the case, not just at the possibility that such evidence may be uncovered should the case proceed, but Wednesday's 6-5 opinion reverses that position, holding that in some "rare" circumstances, it may be impossible for a suit to proceed at all without inevitably compromising national security:[T]here are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between [liberty, justice, transparency, accountability and national secuirty]. On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court's admonition that 'even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake.' ... Here, further litigation presents an unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets no matter what legal or factual theories Jeppesen would choose to advance during a defense. Whether or not Jeppesen provided logistical support in connection with the extraordinary rendition and interrogation programs, there is precious little Jeppesen could say about its relevant conduct and knowledge without revealing information about how the United States does or does not conduct covert operations. ... We ... acknowledge that this case presents a painful conflict between human rights and national security.The majority said that other avenues may be available for the plaintiffs to address their claims, including Congressional investigation of alleged wrongdoing, monetary reparations and the possibility that the executive may "determine whether the plaintiffs' claims have merit" and voluntarily choose to "honor the fundamental principles of justice." The five-judge minority chastised the proposal, saying that "[n]ot only are these remedies insufficient, but their suggestion understates the severity of the consequences to plaintiffs from the denial of judicial relief" and "elevate the impractical to the point of absurdity." ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner also decried the ruling [press release]. "This is a sad day not only for the torture victims ... but for all Americans who care about the rule of law," he said. "To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had his day in court." The state secrets privilege, which allows the exclusion of evidence based on a government affidavit that such evidence may endanger national security, has been highly criticized by rights groups and others. Julian Sanchez [Cato profile] of the Cato Institute [advocacy website] argued [JURIST comment] last October that Congress should implement state secrets reforms, rather than relying on the DOJ to increase oversight. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced [JURIST report] a number of new state secrets policies seeking to increase government accountability and oversight. Also last year, OpenTheGovernment.org [advocacy website] released a report [text, PDF] examining the privilege and other transparency issues, concluding that the current administration has improved transparency [JURIST report], but more should be done.

[JURIST] The EU Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] on Wednesday delivered three judgments striking down gambling restrictions in Germany because the regulations were not designed to protect public interest [judgments]. The suit was filed by several foreign betting companies attempting to break into the German gambling market. The court held that while monopolies are sometimes justified, Germany's "intense advertising" in its gaming operations cause the regulations to fall outside the intended scope of consumer protection. Due to the broad scope of the regulations, the court determined that the German gambling laws were not compatible with EU law on service provisions and games of chance [Article 49-EC text, PDF]. Lobbying firms for the gambling industry called the decision a landmark due to the recent trend of the ECJ upholding gambling restrictions in other EU nations. The ECJ will rule on a similar case [Reuters report] challenging Austrian gambling restrictions on Thursday. The judgments come at a time when the multi-billion euro industry is attempting to break the monopoly held by domestic "game of chance" agencies in many EU member states. In July, the ECJ upheld a Swedish law [JURIST report] that prohibits the promotion of Internet gambling by private operators in other EU member states for profit. The court concluded that Sweden's ban on Internet gambling was in line with EU laws, but that the nation's lottery laws were not allowed to penalize foreign gambling agencies differently from domestic agencies. In June, the ECJ issued two judgments [JURIST report] against UK betting companies Ladbrokes International and Betfair [judgments], upholding Dutch restrictions on Internet gambling. The ECJ ruled in both cases that national regulations on games of chance are compatible with EU law when they are enacted to mitigate addiction and combat fraud.

[JURIST] The Sri Lankan Parliament [official website] on Wednesday voted 161-17 [press release] to give final approval to the 18th amendment [text, PDF] to the Sri Lankan Constitution [materials], eliminating presidential term limits. The parliament joined the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and the Cabinet [JURIST reports], which have also voted to ratify the amendment. In addition to removing presidential term limits, the amendment also requires the president to be present in parliament every three months and gives the president greater control over the membership of the Supreme Court, electoral commission and human rights commission by eliminating an independent advisory body and replacing it with a parliamentary council without veto powers over the appointments. The amendment needed 150 votes in the 225-member parliament to become effective, and garnered the support of six members of the opposition party [press release], who voted in favor of the changes. The amendment will allow current President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official website; BBC profile] to run for reelection at the expiration of his current term in office in 2016. Following the vote, supporters of the opposition party protested against the amendment [BBC report] outside of parliament. Shortly before its passage, the constitutional changes were criticized by former Sri Lanka army chief Sarath Fonseka [JURIST news archive], who described the pending ratification as a blow to democracy [TOI report] which could result in military rule. Fonseka, who was defeated by Rajapaksa in the January presidential election [NYT report], has been facing charges [JURIST report] of engaging in politics while on active duty, provoking violence and bringing disrepute to the government. Critics of the president have called the amendment an abuse of power [AP report] and an attempt to "create a family dynasty." Rajapaksa is a popular figure within Sri Lanka, primarily for his efforts in defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive]. That conflict has raised numerous questions about the government's actions during military operations, including the treatment of prisoners and civilians. Last month, the Sri Lankan defense minister defended the government's actions during the conflict by taking every effort to avoid civilian casualties [JURIST report] and providing humanitarian relief. In July, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the Sri Lankan government to improve conditions around UN offices in Colombo after a UN announcement of an international panel to investigate human rights abuses during the war resulted in days of pro-government protests [JURIST reports] near UN offices.

[JURIST] A Russian judge was killed Tuesday outside his home in the North Caucasus province of Kabardino-Balkaria [BBC backgrounder], according to Russian authorities. District judge Dzhulber Bykov was shot several times [Reuters report] by gunmen suspected to be Islamic insurgents and died at the scene. The Russian government has faced a growing insurgency in the Northern Caucasus, including deadly attacks on government officials in the provinces of Dagestan, Chechnya and Ingushetia [JURIST news archive]. Violence has not been as frequent in Kabardino-Balkaria, but has shown a recent increase in attacks. Government authorities blame the increased violence on Muslim rebels, but government opponents blame increasingly harsh policing tactics, including the alleged abductions, beatings and killings [advocacy report, PDF] of suspected militants. Police are still searching for Bykov's assailants. In June 2009, Aza Gazgireyeva, deputy head of the Supreme Court in Russia's Ingushetia province [official website, in Russian; BBC backgrounder] was shot dead [JURIST report] while taking her children to school in the town of Nazran. It is believed that Gazgireyeva may have been killed for her role in investigating an attack [RTTNews report] on Ingush police forces by Chechen militants in 2004. Gazgireyeva's death came one week after the interior minister of the nearby region of Dagestan was shot dead. In April 2008, another deputy head of the Supreme Court in Ingushetia, Khasan Yandiyev, was shot and killed [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Murder trials began in the Philippines Wednesday for individuals charged in connection with the November 2009 massacre [CSM backgrounder; JURIST news archive] that left 57 dead. Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court is conducting the trial in a high-security Manila prison [ABC report] in response to fears of witnesses being threatened. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] has urged Philippine President Benigno Aquino [BBC profile] to investigate the murders [news release] of five witnesses who had previously agreed to testify at the trial. According to HRW, only 19 of 195 individuals will be put on trial for the murders, while 127 suspects still have not been captured [news release], increasing the possibility of witness intimidation. The massacre case, which many people believe will continue for years, has accumulated nearly 500 witnesses [CNN report]. In April, 11 Philippines policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty to murder charges for their involvement in the massacre, only one month after a Quezon City court dismissed rebellion charges against 24 people [JURIST reports], including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines' semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Philippines Department of Justice [official website] had implicated Ampatuan and several of his followers in the November slayings [press release] of 57 campaign workers, journalists and supporters of family political rival Esmael Mangudadatu. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Mangudadatu's convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans' group killed and buried them.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Tuesday denied [order, PDF] a motion to stay a preliminary injunction [order, PDF; JURIST report] issued in August barring government funding of stem cell research [JURIST news archive]. Chief Judge Royce Lamberth had granted the injunction on the basis that the federal funding violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a provision at Division F, Section 509 of the annual Omnibus Appropriations Act [2009 edition materials], which prohibits appropriated funds from financing research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos. Lamberth rejected the motion to stay the injunction, saying:Defendants are incorrect about much of their "parade of horribles" that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction. ... In this Court's view, a stay would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so. Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos.Earlier this month, the Obama administration appealed [JURIST report] the injunction, arguing that Lamberth's holding was overbroad, endangering an array of research across multiple programs and centers while only serving a very attenuated economic interest of the plaintiffs in the case. According to the filing, the injunction threatens 24 research projects, more than 1,300 jobs and $64 million in funding, as well as potentially millions of Americans who may benefit from medical advances in the field of stem cell research. Last year, President Barack Obama signed an executive order [JURIST report] permitting federal funding for some forms of embryonic stem cell research. Despite the executive order, Lamberth held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail based on existing law. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused similar changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5 materials], which was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos. In 2006, Bush vetoed a previous version [JURIST report] of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Senate to remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying he would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because many consider the destruction of embryos to be murder.

[JURIST] UK Home Secretary Theresa May [official profile] told Parliament Wednesday that the government will review the fairness of current extradition laws [statement] that have stirred controversy in the country. Among the extradition laws to be reviewed are the European Arrest Warrant [materials] and the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty [text, PDF], as well as government's power to release individuals into foreign custody and the proper amount of evidence that must be provided against persons sought through extradition. May explained the purpose of the review process:There are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The government understands that these are longstanding concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice.Critics of the US-UK Extradition Treaty argue that it is unfairly one-sided [Reuters report], allowing more extraditions from the UK to the US than vice versa. Human rights groups have called for reforms [press release] to the country's extradition laws and some groups have criticized May [UKPA report] for not pressing the matter more forcefully. The review is scheduled for completion next summer. The fairness of UK extradition laws have been the center of much debate in light of several prominent criminal cases. In July, a UK court blocked the extradition [JURIST report] of former Bosnian president Ejup Ganic [Trial Watch profile] to Serbia to stand trial for alleged war crimes, saying that the extradition request was politically motivated [AFP report] and an abuse of the processes of the court. Earlier this year, May announced that the extradition of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon [BBC profile; advocacy website] to the US would be delayed [JURIST report]. McKinnon was arrested by British police in 2002 and indicted [text, PDF] by US authorities later that year on charges of hacking NASA, Department of Defense, Air Force, Army and Navy computers in violation of US computer laws [18 USC § 1030 text]. At the time, May indicated [Times Online report] she would carefully consider the UK's extradition treaty with the US as well as McKinnon's medical history before she determines if the extradition order should stand.

[JURIST] A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that at times the government might need a warrant to obtain cell phone data to track a person's location. The ruling reversed a decision [order, PDF] by US Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania [official website], which said that that § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) [text] does not authorize the government to obtain cell site location information (CSLI) and that prosecutors must always show probable cause to access CSLI at the risk of violating a cell phone users' Fourth Amendment [text] rights. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Delores Sloviter remanded the order to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, while stating that the SCA gives judges the discretion to require a warrant when the government seeks CSLI. The court held that:CSLI from cell phone calls is obtainable under a § 2703(d) order and ... such an order does not require the traditional probable cause determination. ... The [magistrate judge] erred in allowing her impressions of the general expectation of privacy of citizens to transform that standard into anything else. We also conclude that this standard is a lesser one than probable cause. ... Because the statute as presently written gives the [magistrate judge] the option to require a warrant showing probable cause, we are unwilling to remove that option although it is an option to be used sparingly because Congress also included the option of a § 2703(d) order. However, should the [magistrate judge] conclude that a warrant is required rather than a § 2703(d) order, on remand it is imperative that the [magistrate judge] make fact findings and give a full explanation that balances the Governments need (not merely desire) for the information with the privacy interests of cell phone users.The court's reasoning closely followed amicus briefs [text, PDF] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology [advocacy websites] opposing the gathering of CSLI, finding that "cell phone customer[s] [have] not "voluntarily" shared [their] location information with a cellular provider[s]," giving up their Fourth Amendment rights. Courts have struggled with how to apply Fourth Amendment protections to modern technology. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that prolonged use of global positioning systems (GPS) to monitor suspects' vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Knotts [opinion text] allows the use of tracking devices to follow vehicles from one place to another based on a lower expectation of privacy on public roads, the appeals court distinguished the instant case by finding that too much personal information is revealed over longer periods of time. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website] unanimously held [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that, even if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-issued electronic devices, that an employer's search of private text messages does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the search is not excessive and is pursuant to a legitimate work-related purpose. In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone. In 2005, a federal court in Maryland ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that US law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant before obtaining information from a cell phone service on the location of a cell phone user. The court noted that although the Fourth Amendment does not protect cell phone users who use their phones in public, probable cause is still required because the individual targeted by the search may use the phone from their home, which has clearly established Fourth Amendment protections.

[JURIST] Representatives from the Cambodian government and the UN met Tuesday with officials from 30 countries seeking additional money to fund the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website]. The tribunal, established by the UN and the Cambodian government to prosecute former Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] leaders, faces budget shortfalls of USD $7.4 million and $39 million this year and next, respectively. The court's original budget called for only $56 million over three years at its establishment in 2006, but it is now expected to require $170 million to complete its mission. The ECCC's fundraising efforts have become increasingly difficult of late as donor nations have raised concerns over allegations of political corruption in the court. In April, Chief Legal Counsel [official website] to the UN, Under-Secretary-General Patricia O'Brien [official profile, PDF], and Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An urged the international community [JURIST report] to provide financial support to the ECCC. The court has thus far yielded one conviction, that of Kaing Guek Eav [case materials], also known as "Duch," who was sentenced [JURIST report] to 35 years in prison for crimes against humanity in July. He later fired his international co-counsel ahead of an appeal [JURIST reports]. The prosecution also appealed [JURIST reports], seeking a longer term than the 19 years to which the court ultimately reduced his sentence.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Tuesday urged the Zambian government to investigate the inhumane treatment of prisoners [press release] in the nation's jails and to hold those implicated accountable. HRW claims that Zambian police officials "routinely engage" in abusing and torturing prisoners in order to extract confessions. HRW urged the Zambian government to train officials on non-abusive interrogation techniques and to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy for inhumane treatment of prisoners. In a letter to the Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs, HRW stated:Prisoners we interviewed repeatedly reported that police had beaten them in custody in order to try to coerce a confession, and often inflicted serious injuries. Inmates showed researchers their misshapen fingers—in some cases smashed by hammers or iron bats—and scars on their feet and hands. Many have long-term injuries that require ongoing medical attention, ostensibly due to their treatment in custody. ... Under international human rights law, people in detention retain their human rights and fundamental freedoms. As you will be aware, the most fundamental protection for detainees is the absolute prohibition on torture.Zambian police officials claim that the use of force against prisoners is not prison policy, but is only used by a "few rotten eggs." HRW disputes this claim, stating that, out of the 246 prisoners interviewed by the rights group, a large proportion were victims of abuse in prison, showing a widespread and systematic execution of inhuman treatment against detainees. Earlier this year, HRW released a similar statement concerning the alleged abuse of prisoners [JURIST report] in a secret Iraqi prison. HRW stated that detainees held at the Muthanna facility, run by Iraqi authorities, were hung upside-down, deprived of air, kicked, whipped, beaten, given electric shocks and sodomized during torture sessions that detainees faced every three to four days. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [official website, in Arabic; BBC profile] denied the reports of a secret prison, claiming the facility was publicly known and that the reports of abuse are exaggerated. In June HRW lauded the Turkish government for its landmark conviction of several prison and police officials [JURIST report] for the torture and death of anti-government activist Engin Ceber while in police custody. The conviction marks the first time a Turkish court has convicted a senior prison official for the conduct of guards under his command.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday began the trial [press release] of former Kivumu, Rwanda, mayor Gregoire Ndahimana [case materials; Trial Watch profile]. Ndahimana was charged [indictment, PDF] in July 2001 on charges of genocide or, alternatively, complicity in genocide, and crimes against humanity in connection with the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Ndahimana is thought to have played a leading role in the April 15, 2001, bulldozing of the Nyange parish, which resulted in the deaths of 2,000 Tutsis hiding inside, and is also believed to have been involved in other killings of Tutsis that took place at the same parish between April 6 and April 20, 1994. Although Ndahimana was indicted in 2001, he spent more than 15 years in hiding before he was captured [VOA report] in August 2009 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The ICTR continues to try suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, died. In August, former Rwandan regional administrator Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was sentenced [JURIST report] by the ICTR to 25 years in prison for his role in the 1994 genocide. In July, Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [Hague Justice profile; case materials] pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to multiple similar genocide charges before the ICTR. Last October, Ugandan officials apprehended [JURIST report] another highly-sought suspect, former Hutu intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana [BBC profile; case materials]. Nizeyimana, who pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to four genocide counts [indictment, PDF], still awaits trial. Nizeyimana was one of four two accused sought by the ICTR in order to complete its mission. In June, UN Security Council [official website] extended the terms [press release] of ICTR trial judges to December 31, 2011, and appellate judges to December 31, 2012.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) [advocacy websites] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Tuesday against the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] challenging a government policy that allows border patrol to search electronic devices without reasonable suspicion. The plaintiffs, which also include press photographers and a university student, claim that the law violates constitutional rights [press release] to privacy and freedom of speech:Electronic devices like laptops, "smart" phones, and external data storage devices hold vast amounts of personal and sensitive information that reveals a vivid pictures of travelers' personal and professional lives, including their intimate thoughts, private communications, expressive choices, and privileged or confidential work product. [The] policies and practices of searching, copying, and detaining these personal devices without suspicion or judicial supervision violates the constitutional rights of American citizens to keep the private and expressive details of their lives, as well as sensitive information obtained or created in the course of their work, free from unwarranted government scrutiny.American citizen and university student Pascal Abidor had his laptop searched and confiscated while on a train from Montreal to New York. Abidor was interrogated and released without charge several hours later. Documents gathered by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [official website] reported that, under the DHS policy, more than 6,600 travelers, nearly half of whom are American citizens, were subjected to electronic device searches at the border between October 1, 2008, and June 2, 2010. In 2008, US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) [official website] criticized [JURIST report] the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [official website] for warrantless searches and seizures of travelers' laptops and other digital devices at the US border, calling the searches an unacceptable invasion of privacy [hearing materials]. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable suspicion is not necessary to conduct routine searches at the border, but searches of laptops and other digital devices are analogous to more invasive practices such as strip searches, said Feingold.

[JURIST] Founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) [advocacy website] James Boyd, Jr. [official profile] called [press release] Tuesday for the US Senate [official website] to fund a settlement [JURIST report] in a discrimination case involving minority farmers. The request comes a month after the Senate failed to approve [press release; CNN report] over a billion dollars for a settlement between the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) [official website] and the black farmers. The US House of Representatives [official website] approved a measure in July that included money to fund the settlement, but the bill failed to pass through the Senate for a seventh time. President Barack Obama has expressed his support [USA Today report] for the settlement agreement between the NBFA and USDA. The battle by the NBFA to receive an allocation of resources is over a decade old. In 2008, the NBFA brought a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] against the USDA, alleging on behalf of more than 800 black farmers that the USDA improperly discriminated against them. Many farmers were left out of the 1999 settlement [text, PDF; NALC backgrounder, PDF] after missing a filing deadline, and thousands more argued that the terms of the settlement were inadequate. After earlier accusations of unfair distribution of resources, the USDA created the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) [official website] in 2003 to monitor compliance with civil rights laws and to help ensure equality in the administration of the USDA's many programs.

[JURIST] The Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] unanimously confirmed on Tuesday the lower court order that National Court judge Baltasar Garzon [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] abused his power and must face trial. Garzon was charged [JURIST report] in April for his attempt to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed under Francisco Franco [BBC backgrounder] during the Spanish Civil War [LOC backgrounder]—charges Garzon claims were politically motivated. The board of judges denied [El Pais report, in Spanish] Garzon's appeal of the order, and he will now face trial later this year. The judges found that the witnesses called by Garzon will produce merely personal opinions and also determined that exhumation of 19 mass graves that Garzon ordered [JURIST report] in 2008 was inappropriate. The ruling comes just days after an Argentine court reopened [JURIST report] the case against Franco for his alleged crimes against humanity. Garzon has faced turmoil since his 2008 decision. In May, the Spanish General Counsel of the Judiciary (CGPJ) [official website, in Spanish] voted unanimously to suspend [JURIST report] Garzon. Later that month, the judiciary oversight committee of the CGPJ approved a request [JURIST report] by Garzon to work with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. The ICC asked [press release] Garzon to work for them as a consultant for a period of seven months in order to improve their investigative methods. Thousands gathered [JURIST report] in cities across Spain in April in support of Garzon, chanting slogans and displaying flags of the pre-war Republican government ousted by Franco. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

[JURIST] A Kenyan court on Monday convicted seven Somali pirates [JURIST news archive] on charges related to the attack on a German naval supply ship in March 2009, sentencing them to five years in prison. According to prosecutors, the men attempted to hijack the ship [AfricaNews report] using AK47 rifles and rocket propelled grenades, but the hijacking was prevented by security forces on the ship. Following the attack, the pirates were tracked and apprehended by ships acting as part of EU Naval Forces Somalia (EU NAVFOR) [official website] before being transferred to Kenyan custody to stand trial. A lawyer for the men urged the court to be lenient [Xinhua report] in their sentencing, stating that the men would be a burden to Kenyan taxpayers. The men also indicated that they have been rehabilitated through their time in prison and that they will actively work to discourage others from participating in piracy. While the five-year sentence is the shortest handed down by Kenyan courts for piracy charges since the country began hearing piracy cases in 2006, the judge delivering the judgment of the court indicated that it would be a strong deterrent for others considering engaging in piracy. EU NAVFOR praised the judgment [press release] as an "important step in the co-operation between European Union and Kenya in the repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia." The men have 14 days to appeal the court's decision. The international community continues with efforts to fight maritime piracy, both through the funding of UN-backed piracy courts, and through prosecution in multiple jurisdictions. In July, a court in Seychelles convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] a group of Somali pirates to 10 years in prison following the attempted hijacking of Seychelles coastguard ship. In June, the UN announced the opening of a new high-security courtroom [JURIST report] in Kenya that will hear piracy cases. The announcement came after the UN announced $9.3 million in donations [JURIST report] to help fund piracy courts in Kenya and Seychelles. Also in June, a Dutch court concluded Europe's first Somali pirate trial by convicting and sentencing a group of suspects [JURIST reports] to five years in prison. In May, a Yemeni court sentenced six pirates to death [JURIST report] for their roles in an attack on a Yemeni oil tanker in 2009. Charges are also currently pending [JURIST report] against piracy suspects in the US.