Libel Court Costs are Too High, European Court Judgment Concludes

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that excessive legal fees charged by claimants’ lawyers in libel and privacy cases violate freedom of expression. The decision, entitled  MGN Ltd. v. United Kingdom  results from a lawsuit filed by Naomi Campbell, who is a familiar name on these pages, against a British tabloid, the Daily Mirror. Her lawyers operated on a 'no win, no fee' agreement. Although the English court only awarded £3,500 for publishing details and photographs of Ms. Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, it also hit the newspaper with costs of £850,000, of which £365,000 was a 'success fee'. A chamber of the  European Court of Human Rights said the 'bizarre and expensive' costs scheme breached freedom of the press, which is enshrined in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ICC and the United States

One of our doctoral graduates, Megan Fairlie, who is now an assistant professor at Florida International University College of Law, has posted an article on the United States and the International Criminal court on the blog IntLawGrrls.
Megan is the fourth academic associated with the Irish Centre for Human Rights to publish on that distinguished blog. The others are: Meg deGuzman, Nadia Bernaz and Yvonne McDermott:

Diane Amann, who is one of the editors of the blog, will be one of our guest academics at the Irish Centre's doctoral seminar in early May.

International Bar Association Report on the International Criminal Court

For the latest report of the International Bar Association on the International Criminal Court, click here.

Genocide Convention and the International Criminal Court

Some have suggested that the issuance of a second arrest warrant in the Bashir case before the International Criminal Court changes the legal situation because the Genocide Convention adds to the obligations on states and strengthens what the Prosecutor can demand of them in terms of cooperation. The views on the subject of several academics, including myself, appear on the UCLA Law Forum. It is labelled a debate, although I didn't see the other contributions before they were published and the five of us don't engage directly with the positions taken by the others. I don't mean this comment to detract from the quality of the contributions, however, and the usefulness of the materials.
I seem to have been the only one to take the view that we can only speak of an obligation to arrest, etc.under the Genocide Covnention if there is in fact genocide taking place. The fact that the Prosecutor describes Bashir's acts as genocide and the fact that the Pre-Trial Chamber has said there is a reasonable basis to issue an arrest warrant - after the Appeals Chamber had told the Pre-Trial Chamber not to be so rigorous at the arrest warrant stage - certainly doesn't mean that genocide has been committed. If the Convention imposes an obligation simply because an arrest warrant has been issued, perhaps we should change its name to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Situations Where Genocide Might Have Taken Place. I doubt that if that were really the scope of the Convention, we would have as many ratifications as we have.
In any case, lots of informed specialists, including the UN Commission in 2005 that was chaired by Professor Cassese, think that genocide is not the correct term to be used for the events in Darfur. As I point out in my article, even the Prosecutor didn't charge genocide in the first two arrest warrants concerning Darfur.
Can it really be the case that the obligations under the Rome Statute are enhanced merely because the Prosecutor adds the term genocide to the charges? If that's how it works, I suppose he'll be tempted to charge everyone with genocide, even if he can't make the charge stick at trial. I'd certainly be curious to see the reaction of the others who contributed to the UCLA Law Forum, and to readers of this blog generally, on that point.

Human Rights and Religions Course at Trinity

The School of Religions and Theology , Trinity College Dublin together  with the Irish Centre for Human Rights of NUI Galway are offering a course entitled Human Rights and Religions.

The course on human rights and religions is designed to encourage participants to go beyond stereotyping, to support dignity and respect of religious minorities and to work towards a more inclusive community.

Here is the poster for the course, and the registration form. You can also contact the organiser, Shona McCambridge, directly: mccambrs@tcd.ie.

Course on Sharia Law at Siracusa Institute

Every year, the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences (ISISC), which is based in Siracusa, Sicily, holds a short course for 'young penalists'. The course brings in top speakers from around the world. Students also get much quality time with one of the legends of international criminal law, Cherif Bassiouni, who is the director of the Institute.
The programme also provides participants with an opportunity to network with colleagues elsewhere in the world. The Irish Centre for Human Rights regularly cosponsors the course, as it does this year.
This year the theme of the programme is 'The Sharia: Sources of Law and Selected Legal Aspects'. The course is being held from 22 to 31 May. For more information, click here.

Rwanda Genocide Trial in Germany

A Rwandan charged with genocide relating to the 1994 events is now on trial in Germany. See one of the accounts. This is the latest in a number of examples of universal jurisdiction being exercised with respect to Rwandan genocide cases.
Thanks to Hilde Laeremans.

The Minotaur

This may first have been disclosed through Wikileaks. It describes the labyrinthine philosophy of the Bush administration. Click here.
Thanks to Guy Goodwin-Gill.

Analysis of Death Penalty Vote in General Assembly

On 21 December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the third resolution in four years calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, with a greater number of states in favour than previously. The vote sheet is now available. It shows the following changes in position by comparison with the results of the previous vote, in 2008:
Two states that were opposed to the resolution in 2008 voted in favour in 2010: Maldives, Mongolia.
Five states that had abstained in 2008 voted in favour of the resolution in 2010: Bhutan, Gambia, Guatemala, Togo.
Two states that had voted in favour in 2008 did not cast their votes in 2010: Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritius.
There appear to be no states that went from support to abstention or opposition.

EU Ratifies Convention on Disabilities

The European Union has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is the first time that the EU has ratified a human rights treaty. The EU signed the Convention in 2007. 
Article 42 of the Convention says: 'The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States and by regional integration organizations at United Nations Headquarters in New York as of 30 March 2007.' Article 43 says: 'The present Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States and to formal confirmation by signatory regional integration organizations.'
The EU is the 97th party to the Convention.
The EU is also in a position to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights. Negotiations are now underway with the Council of Europe in order to work out the details. For a discussion on EU ratification of the European Convention, see the article by my colleague Laurent Pech and Xavier Groussot in European Issues.
Thanks to Clemens Müller and Laurent Pech.