A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday revoked the passport of former Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, who stepped down earlier this week amid an investigation into his alleged role in allowing illegal exports of timber from the Amazon rainforest. 
 
Justice Carmen Lucia said in a ruling that Salles was barred from leaving the country after federal prosecutors entered a motion that he be considered a flight risk. The former minister was given 24 hours to hand over his passport to police, according to court documents. 
 
Salles could not immediately be reached for comment. The former minister has denied any wrongdoing. 
 
In May, federal police disclosed that Salles and several other government officials were under investigation for allegations of possible corruption and other crimes in allowing illegal logged Amazon rainforest wood to be exported to the United States and Europe. 
 
Earlier this month, Lucia also launched an investigation into whether Salles had obstructed the police logging probe. 
 
Salles resigned on Wednesday, saying he wanted to allow for Brazil's international and domestic agenda to be carried out as smoothly as possible. 
 
Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon surged during Salles' tenure, hitting a 12-year high in 2020 with an area seven times the size of London destroyed. 
 
(With the inputs from agencies)

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday revoked the passport of former Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, who stepped down earlier this week amid an investigation into his alleged role in allowing illegal exports of timber from the Amazon rainforest.

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday revoked the passport of former Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, who stepped down earlier this week amid an investigation into his alleged role in allowing illegal exports of timber from the Amazon rainforest. Justice Carmen Lucia said in a ruling that Salles was barred from leaving the country after federal prosecutors entered a motion that he be considered a flight risk. The former minister was given 24 hours to hand over his passport to police, according to court documents. Salles could not immediately be reached for comment. The former minister has denied any wrongdoing. In May, federal police disclosed that Salles and several other government officials were under investigation for allegations of possible corruption and other crimes in allowing illegal logged Amazon rainforest wood to be exported to the United States and Europe. Earlier this month, Lucia also launched an investigation into whether Salles had obstructed the police logging probe. Salles resigned on Wednesday, saying he wanted to allow for Brazil's international and domestic agenda to be carried out as smoothly as possible. Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon surged during Salles' tenure, hitting a 12-year high in 2020 with an area seven times the size of London destroyed. (With the inputs from agencies)

Brazil judge revokes passport of ex-environment minister under probe

Hong Kong's Court of Appeal upheld on Tuesday a court decision to deny a trial by jury to the first person charged under a new national security law, a landmark decision that marks a departure from the global financial hub's common law tradition. 
 
Last month, the Court of First Instance in the High Court ruled that Tong Ying-kit would face a trial without jury, citing 'a perceived risk of the personal safety of jurors and their family members'. His lawyer appealed. 
 
"Although jury trial is the conventional mode of trial in the Court of First Instance, it should not be assumed to be the only means of achieving fairness in the criminal process," according to a summary of the decision by judges Jeremy Poon, Wally Yeung and Johnson Lam. 
 
"When personal safety of jurors and their family members is under threat and due administration of justice might be impaired, there is a real risk that the goal of a fair trial by jury will be put in peril." 
 
Police say Tong carried a sign reading 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times' and drove his motorbike into officers during a protest on July 1, knocking several down on a narrow street before falling over and getting arrested. 
 
It was the first day on which the security law that Beijing imposed on the city, targeting what China deems as secession, separatism, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, was in force. Tong, 24, was charged with inciting separatism and terrorism. 
 
In February, Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng informed the defendant's legal team his trial would be heard by three judges appointed for national security cases instead of a jury, citing risks to jurors' safety. 
 
Tong then filed for a judicial review of the decision, which High Court Judge Alex Lee in the Court of First Instance rejected. 
 
Hong Kong's Judiciary describes trial by jury as one of the most important features of the city's legal system, a common law tradition designed to offer defendants additional protection against the possibility of authorities overreaching their power. 
 
Article 46 of the new law, drafted by Beijing, where courts are controlled by the Communist Party and conviction rates are close to 100%, states three instances in which juries can be scrapped: protecting state secrets, cases involving foreign forces and protecting jurors' safety. 
 
Tong has also been denied bail. Hong Kong's common law has traditionally allowed defendants to seek release unless prosecutors can show lawful grounds for their detention. 
 
In another departure from common law practices, the burden is now placed on the defendant to prove they will not break the law if released on bail. 
 
The trial is due to start on Wednesday. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Hong Kong's Court of Appeal upheld on Tuesday a court decision to deny a trial by jury to the first person charged under a new national security law, a landmark decision that marks a departure from the global financial hub's common law tradition.

Hong Kong's Court of Appeal upheld on Tuesday a court decision to deny a trial by jury to the first person charged under a new national security law, a landmark decision that marks a departure from the global financial hub's common law tradition. Last month, the Court of First Instance in the High Court ruled that Tong Ying-kit would face a trial without jury, citing 'a perceived risk of the personal safety of jurors and their family members'. His lawyer appealed. "Although jury trial is the conventional mode of trial in the Court of First Instance, it should not be assumed to be the only means of achieving fairness in the criminal process," according to a summary of the decision by judges Jeremy Poon, Wally Yeung and Johnson Lam. "When personal safety of jurors and their family members is under threat and due administration of justice might be impaired, there is a real risk that the goal of a fair trial by jury will be put in peril." Police say Tong carried a sign reading 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times' and drove his motorbike into officers during a protest on July 1, knocking several down on a narrow street before falling over and getting arrested. It was the first day on which the security law that Beijing imposed on the city, targeting what China deems as secession, separatism, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, was in force. Tong, 24, was charged with inciting separatism and terrorism. In February, Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng informed the defendant's legal team his trial would be heard by three judges appointed for national security cases instead of a jury, citing risks to jurors' safety. Tong then filed for a judicial review of the decision, which High Court Judge Alex Lee in the Court of First Instance rejected. Hong Kong's Judiciary describes trial by jury as one of the most important features of the city's legal system, a common law tradition designed to offer defendants additional protection against the possibility of authorities overreaching their power. Article 46 of the new law, drafted by Beijing, where courts are controlled by the Communist Party and conviction rates are close to 100%, states three instances in which juries can be scrapped: protecting state secrets, cases involving foreign forces and protecting jurors' safety. Tong has also been denied bail. Hong Kong's common law has traditionally allowed defendants to seek release unless prosecutors can show lawful grounds for their detention. In another departure from common law practices, the burden is now placed on the defendant to prove they will not break the law if released on bail. The trial is due to start on Wednesday. (With inputs from agencies)

Hong Kong court upholds decision to have no jury at first national security trial

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons.

The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee.

On June 4, Judge Roger T. Benitez of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California said in a decision that the state law defining assault weapons and restricting their use was unconstitutional.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez wrote in the first line of a 94-page decision.

The AR-15 is “good for both home and battle,” he wrote, adding: “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

But the judge granted a 30-day stay of the ruling at the request of California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, a move that allowed Bonta to appeal it.

In a decision on Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further extended Benitez’s stay, pending resolution of another case challenging the ban. “The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court,” the judges wrote.

The three judges were Senior Circuit Court Judge Barry G. Silverman, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton; Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, nominated by President Barack Obama; and Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, nominated by President Donald Trump.

Bonta welcomed the ruling Monday. “This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said on Twitter. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday night.

John Dillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

In the earlier ruling, Benitez wrote that the case was about “what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment.” He added, “Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned.”

The firearms banned under the state’s law, he wrote, were not “bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” but rather “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.”

Benitez was nominated as a district court judge in 2003 by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate the next year. In 2017, he blocked a new California law that would have banned magazines of more than 10 rounds. A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in a split decision last year, but the appeals court said in February that an 11-judge panel would rehear the case.

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons. The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee.

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons. The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee. On June 4, Judge Roger T. Benitez of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California said in a decision that the state law defining assault weapons and restricting their use was unconstitutional. “Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez wrote in the first line of a 94-page decision. The AR-15 is “good for both home and battle,” he wrote, adding: “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.” But the judge granted a 30-day stay of the ruling at the request of California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, a move that allowed Bonta to appeal it. In a decision on Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further extended Benitez’s stay, pending resolution of another case challenging the ban. “The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court,” the judges wrote. The three judges were Senior Circuit Court Judge Barry G. Silverman, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton; Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, nominated by President Barack Obama; and Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, nominated by President Donald Trump. Bonta welcomed the ruling Monday. “This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said on Twitter. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.” Gov. Gavin Newsom did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday night. John Dillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. In the earlier ruling, Benitez wrote that the case was about “what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment.” He added, “Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned.” The firearms banned under the state’s law, he wrote, were not “bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” but rather “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.” Benitez was nominated as a district court judge in 2003 by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate the next year. In 2017, he blocked a new California law that would have banned magazines of more than 10 rounds. A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in a split decision last year, but the appeals court said in February that an 11-judge panel would rehear the case.

Appeals court blocks ruling that overturned California’s assault weapons ban

Hong Kong's High Court on Tuesday approved bail for a pro-democracy activist, who is among 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on its freest city last year, the city's public broadcaster RTHK reported. 
 
Owen Chow, 24, who has been in jail for nearly four months, was ordered to pay HK$50,000 and follow a list of bail conditions, including not threatening national security, reporting to police every day and surrendering all travel documents, according to RTHK. 
 
Chow was the 12th activist in the case, who was given bail while awaiting trial. 
 
Foreign diplomats and rights groups are closely watching proceedings as concerns rise over the vanishing space for dissent in the former British colony, which has taken a rapid authoritarian turn since the law was imposed in June 2020. 
 
The case offers insight into how the security law drafted by Beijing clashes with Hong Kong's common-law traditions and could see activists held in custody for months until their trial begins. 
 
In contrast with past practice, the new law puts onus on defendants in the global financial hub to prove they will not pose a security threat if released on bail. 
 
Wong and the other charged activists are accused of organising and participating in an unofficial, non-binding primary poll in July 2020 that authorities said was part of a 'vicious plot' to 'overthrow' the government.

Hong Kong's High Court on Tuesday approved bail for a pro-democracy activist, who is among 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on its freest city last year, the city's public broadcaster RTHK reported.

Hong Kong's High Court on Tuesday approved bail for a pro-democracy activist, who is among 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on its freest city last year, the city's public broadcaster RTHK reported. Owen Chow, 24, who has been in jail for nearly four months, was ordered to pay HK$50,000 and follow a list of bail conditions, including not threatening national security, reporting to police every day and surrendering all travel documents, according to RTHK. Chow was the 12th activist in the case, who was given bail while awaiting trial. Foreign diplomats and rights groups are closely watching proceedings as concerns rise over the vanishing space for dissent in the former British colony, which has taken a rapid authoritarian turn since the law was imposed in June 2020. The case offers insight into how the security law drafted by Beijing clashes with Hong Kong's common-law traditions and could see activists held in custody for months until their trial begins. In contrast with past practice, the new law puts onus on defendants in the global financial hub to prove they will not pose a security threat if released on bail. Wong and the other charged activists are accused of organising and participating in an unofficial, non-binding primary poll in July 2020 that authorities said was part of a 'vicious plot' to 'overthrow' the government.

Hong Kong court grants bail to activist charged under security law: Media

The owners of a giant container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March have made a new offer in a compensation dispute with the canal authority, a lawyer for the authority said on Sunday, as a court ruling on the case was postponed for two weeks.

The Ever Given container ship has been anchored in a lake between two stretches of the canal since it was dislodged on March 29. It had been grounded across the canal for six days, blocking hundreds of ships and disrupting global trade.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ships-of-woes-when-ship-disasters-hit-global-headlines-389497">Ships of woes: When ship disasters hit global headlines</a>

The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) demanded $916 million in compensation to cover salvage efforts, reputational damage and lost revenue, before publicly lowering the request to $550 million.

Ever Given's Japanese owners Shoei Kisen and its insurers have disputed the claim and the ship's detention under an Egyptian court order.

Negotiations had been continuing until Saturday, SCA lawyer Khaled Abu Bakr told a court hearing in Ismailia over the ship's detention. The ship's owners had put in a new offer, he said, without giving details.

The SCA's chairman previously said Shoei Kisen had offered to pay $150 million.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/court-allows-suez-canal-to-keep-holding-cargo-ship-ever-given-lawyers-387057">Court allows Suez Canal to keep holding cargo ship Ever Given: Lawyers&nbsp;</a>

A court ruling was due on Sunday after several delays, but Shoei Kisen's legal team asked to allow more time for negotiations, one of their lawyers said.

Judicial sources said the case was postponed until July 4 to allow for "friendly settlement" between the parties.

This week UK Club, one of the ship's insurers, said it was engaged in "serious and constructive negotiations" with the SCA, and was "hopeful of a positive resolution to these negotiations in the near future".

The owners of a giant container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March have made a new offer in a compensation dispute with the canal authority, a lawyer for the authority said on Sunday, as a court ruling on the case was postponed for two weeks.

The owners of a giant container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March have made a new offer in a compensation dispute with the canal authority, a lawyer for the authority said on Sunday, as a court ruling on the case was postponed for two weeks. The Ever Given container ship has been anchored in a lake between two stretches of the canal since it was dislodged on March 29. It had been grounded across the canal for six days, blocking hundreds of ships and disrupting global trade. Also read | Ships of woes: When ship disasters hit global headlines The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) demanded $916 million in compensation to cover salvage efforts, reputational damage and lost revenue, before publicly lowering the request to $550 million. Ever Given's Japanese owners Shoei Kisen and its insurers have disputed the claim and the ship's detention under an Egyptian court order. Negotiations had been continuing until Saturday, SCA lawyer Khaled Abu Bakr told a court hearing in Ismailia over the ship's detention. The ship's owners had put in a new offer, he said, without giving details. The SCA's chairman previously said Shoei Kisen had offered to pay $150 million. Also read | Court allows Suez Canal to keep holding cargo ship Ever Given: Lawyers A court ruling was due on Sunday after several delays, but Shoei Kisen's legal team asked to allow more time for negotiations, one of their lawyers said. Judicial sources said the case was postponed until July 4 to allow for "friendly settlement" between the parties. This week UK Club, one of the ship's insurers, said it was engaged in "serious and constructive negotiations" with the SCA, and was "hopeful of a positive resolution to these negotiations in the near future".

New compensation offer made over Suez Canal blockage: Lawyer

A Russian court on Wednesday outlawed groups linked to jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after declaring them "extremist", a move that bans his allies from elections and will further strain U.S.-Russia ties before a closely watched summit.

President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden are due to hold talks in Geneva next week with the fate of Navalny and the crackdown on his movement certain to be on the agenda.

Washington, which has asked Moscow to free Navalny, condemned the court decision, with the State Department calling it "particularly disturbing." The Kremlin says the matter is a purely domestic one and not Biden's business. It has portrayed Navalny as a U.S.-backed trouble maker, something Navalny has denied.

Wednesday's ruling, the latest chapter in a long-running crackdown on Putin's fiercest domestic opponent, delivers a final hammer blow to a vast political network that Navalny built up over many years to try to challenge the veteran Russian leader's grip on power.

Putin, 68, has been in power as either president or prime minister since 1999. Navalny, in jail for parole violations related to an embezzlement case he says was trumped up, had mounted a bold challenge to Putin via street protests and graft investigations which he had hoped would bring about a change of leadership.

The legal case against Navalny's network was brought by the office of Moscow's top prosecutor who had accused Navalny and his allies of trying to foment a revolution by seeking to destabilize the socio-political situation inside Russia with their activity.

A spokesperson for the Moscow prosecutor's office told reporters on Wednesday that he was pleased with the ruling which had recognized that Navalny's allies had organized illegal street rallies that had ended in mass unrest.

After a 12.5 hour legal hearing behind closed doors, Navalny's lawyers said in a statement they would appeal and that the evidence presented by prosecutors had not been satisfactory.

The legal offensive mirrors ones waged in the past against far-right groups, Islamist organizations, and the Jehovah's Witnesses which were also declared "extremist" by courts and banned.

Navalny and his allies denied the prosecutor's allegations, casting them as an attempt to try to crush their political opposition to the ruling United Russia party ahead of parliamentary elections in September.

In a message posted on Navalny's Instagram account apparently drafted in anticipation of what was a widely expected ruling, Navalny was cited as urging his supporters to not be disheartened. "We're not going anywhere," the message read. 
"We'll digest this, sort things out, change, and evolve. We'll adapt. We won't step back from our aims and ideas. This is our country and we do not have another one."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/navalny-dedicates-human-rights-award-to-political-prisoners-in-russia-and-belarus-390311">Also Read |&nbsp;Navalny dedicates human rights award to political prisoners in Russia and Belarus&nbsp;</a>

The prosecutor's request formally ends the activity of a network of groups set up by Navalny, 45, who is serving a 2-1/2 year jail term, something many Western countries have portrayed as politically motivated revenge for his anti-Kremlin political activities.

Specifically, the ruling targets Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation which has produced high-profile investigations into alleged official corruption, and Navalny's regional campaign headquarters which have mobilized in the past to organize anti-Kremlin protests.

The authorities now have the formal power to jail activists and freeze their bank accounts if they continue their activities. The case had already prompted Navalny's allies to suspend the groups even before the ruling.

In the run-up to the verdict, Putin last week signed legislation that barred members of "extremist" organizations from running for office. Combined with Wednesday's ruling, the new legislation ends hopes by some Navalny allies to run for parliament.

They say they will try to use a smart or tactical voting strategy instead to seek to undermine support for the pro-Kremlin ruling party, a strategy Kremlin sources have belittled.

A Russian court on Wednesday outlawed groups linked to jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after declaring them "extremist", a move that bans his allies from elections and will further strain U.

A Russian court on Wednesday outlawed groups linked to jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after declaring them "extremist", a move that bans his allies from elections and will further strain U.S.-Russia ties before a closely watched summit. President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden are due to hold talks in Geneva next week with the fate of Navalny and the crackdown on his movement certain to be on the agenda. Washington, which has asked Moscow to free Navalny, condemned the court decision, with the State Department calling it "particularly disturbing." The Kremlin says the matter is a purely domestic one and not Biden's business. It has portrayed Navalny as a U.S.-backed trouble maker, something Navalny has denied. Wednesday's ruling, the latest chapter in a long-running crackdown on Putin's fiercest domestic opponent, delivers a final hammer blow to a vast political network that Navalny built up over many years to try to challenge the veteran Russian leader's grip on power. Putin, 68, has been in power as either president or prime minister since 1999. Navalny, in jail for parole violations related to an embezzlement case he says was trumped up, had mounted a bold challenge to Putin via street protests and graft investigations which he had hoped would bring about a change of leadership. The legal case against Navalny's network was brought by the office of Moscow's top prosecutor who had accused Navalny and his allies of trying to foment a revolution by seeking to destabilize the socio-political situation inside Russia with their activity. A spokesperson for the Moscow prosecutor's office told reporters on Wednesday that he was pleased with the ruling which had recognized that Navalny's allies had organized illegal street rallies that had ended in mass unrest. After a 12.5 hour legal hearing behind closed doors, Navalny's lawyers said in a statement they would appeal and that the evidence presented by prosecutors had not been satisfactory. The legal offensive mirrors ones waged in the past against far-right groups, Islamist organizations, and the Jehovah's Witnesses which were also declared "extremist" by courts and banned. Navalny and his allies denied the prosecutor's allegations, casting them as an attempt to try to crush their political opposition to the ruling United Russia party ahead of parliamentary elections in September. In a message posted on Navalny's Instagram account apparently drafted in anticipation of what was a widely expected ruling, Navalny was cited as urging his supporters to not be disheartened. "We're not going anywhere," the message read. "We'll digest this, sort things out, change, and evolve. We'll adapt. We won't step back from our aims and ideas. This is our country and we do not have another one." Also Read | Navalny dedicates human rights award to political prisoners in Russia and Belarus The prosecutor's request formally ends the activity of a network of groups set up by Navalny, 45, who is serving a 2-1/2 year jail term, something many Western countries have portrayed as politically motivated revenge for his anti-Kremlin political activities. Specifically, the ruling targets Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation which has produced high-profile investigations into alleged official corruption, and Navalny's regional campaign headquarters which have mobilized in the past to organize anti-Kremlin protests. The authorities now have the formal power to jail activists and freeze their bank accounts if they continue their activities. The case had already prompted Navalny's allies to suspend the groups even before the ruling. In the run-up to the verdict, Putin last week signed legislation that barred members of "extremist" organizations from running for office. Combined with Wednesday's ruling, the new legislation ends hopes by some Navalny allies to run for parliament. They say they will try to use a smart or tactical voting strategy instead to seek to undermine support for the pro-Kremlin ruling party, a strategy Kremlin sources have belittled.

Russian court outlaws Kremlin critic Navalny's network in pre-election knockout

A 35-year old senior executive at a software company in Singapore, who made racially offensive tweets in April last year, including slurs to Indians and condemning Indian immigrants about COVID-19, was jailed for three weeks on Tuesday, a media report said.

Zainal Abidin Shaiful Bahari, a Malay, pleaded guilty to two charges each of committing acts he knew were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different racial groups in Singapore. Another two similar charges were considered in sentencing, Channel News Asia reported.

A member of the public called the police in April 2020 after seeing a tweet by the user 'sharonliew86' condemning Indian immigrants about COVID-19.&nbsp;

Zainal, a senior director at a software company, used the pseudonym 'Sharon Liew' (Chinese name), had sole control of the account.

In March 2020, he also posted that 'smart Chinese' women have done social distancing inside the Mass Rapid Transit subway trains by not wanting to sit next to Indians.

Zainal's lawyers claimed that he was 'not a racist' and that he was taking over a 'parody account' and 'overstepped the mark' while 'trying to be funny'.

District Judge S Jennifer Marie said that race and religion are sensitive issues and would-be offenders must realise that careless remarks have the potential to cause social disorder.

"Further, when such remarks are published with the medium of the Internet, they have the ubiquitous reach and therefore amplify the potential and irreversible harm that could be caused to...Peace and racial harmony."

She added that racial tensions have been heightened by the continued pandemic and a strong deterrent signal must be sent.

Zainal was identified and police investigations revealed that he had set up the Twitter account in July 2018 with two other friends.

It was meant to be a parody account and had more than 5,000 followers, but the posts by Zainal's two friends stopped from early 2019.

Zainal took sole control of the account and posted the offensive tweets in March and April 2020.

The prosecutor called for four weeks' jail, saying there was a clear need for general deterrence, especially in the current climate where tensions in the community have been heightened and strained by exceptional pandemic circumstances.

Lawyer Sunil Sudheesan asked instead for three weeks' jail, saying that every action by his client must be viewed "in the proper context".

"He's not a racist, obviously," said Sudheesan. Zainal is married to a Chinese woman and has racially diverse friends.

Sudheesan said everyone, who followed the account knew it was a parody, and things could have become inflamed when people who did not know the intention of certain tweets forwarded them.

"Our client is very sorry for this. He should have anticipated this," the Channel quoted the lawyer as saying. 
The prosecutor responded that Zainal had well crossed the line.

"This was not parody, this was not satirical behaviour, this was simply the actions of an online troll who was provoking others...This is really not acceptable," he said. The judge told Zainal that the language used in his tweets were in bad taste.

"If you had really valued racial and cultural diversity, you should have appreciated all the more the need to preserve ... Sensitivities given the multi-cultural fabric of Singapore," she said.

For each charge of committing an act prejudicial to racial harmony, Zainal could have been jailed up to three years, fined, or both.&nbsp;

A 35-year old senior executive at a software company in Singapore, who made racially offensive tweets in April last year, including slurs to Indians and condemning Indian immigrants about COVID-19, was jailed for three weeks on Tuesday, a media report said.

A 35-year old senior executive at a software company in Singapore, who made racially offensive tweets in April last year, including slurs to Indians and condemning Indian immigrants about COVID-19, was jailed for three weeks on Tuesday, a media report said. Zainal Abidin Shaiful Bahari, a Malay, pleaded guilty to two charges each of committing acts he knew were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different racial groups in Singapore. Another two similar charges were considered in sentencing, Channel News Asia reported. A member of the public called the police in April 2020 after seeing a tweet by the user 'sharonliew86' condemning Indian immigrants about COVID-19. Zainal, a senior director at a software company, used the pseudonym 'Sharon Liew' (Chinese name), had sole control of the account. In March 2020, he also posted that 'smart Chinese' women have done social distancing inside the Mass Rapid Transit subway trains by not wanting to sit next to Indians. Zainal's lawyers claimed that he was 'not a racist' and that he was taking over a 'parody account' and 'overstepped the mark' while 'trying to be funny'. District Judge S Jennifer Marie said that race and religion are sensitive issues and would-be offenders must realise that careless remarks have the potential to cause social disorder. "Further, when such remarks are published with the medium of the Internet, they have the ubiquitous reach and therefore amplify the potential and irreversible harm that could be caused to...Peace and racial harmony." She added that racial tensions have been heightened by the continued pandemic and a strong deterrent signal must be sent. Zainal was identified and police investigations revealed that he had set up the Twitter account in July 2018 with two other friends. It was meant to be a parody account and had more than 5,000 followers, but the posts by Zainal's two friends stopped from early 2019. Zainal took sole control of the account and posted the offensive tweets in March and April 2020. The prosecutor called for four weeks' jail, saying there was a clear need for general deterrence, especially in the current climate where tensions in the community have been heightened and strained by exceptional pandemic circumstances. Lawyer Sunil Sudheesan asked instead for three weeks' jail, saying that every action by his client must be viewed "in the proper context". "He's not a racist, obviously," said Sudheesan. Zainal is married to a Chinese woman and has racially diverse friends. Sudheesan said everyone, who followed the account knew it was a parody, and things could have become inflamed when people who did not know the intention of certain tweets forwarded them. "Our client is very sorry for this. He should have anticipated this," the Channel quoted the lawyer as saying. The prosecutor responded that Zainal had well crossed the line. "This was not parody, this was not satirical behaviour, this was simply the actions of an online troll who was provoking others...This is really not acceptable," he said. The judge told Zainal that the language used in his tweets were in bad taste. "If you had really valued racial and cultural diversity, you should have appreciated all the more the need to preserve ... Sensitivities given the multi-cultural fabric of Singapore," she said. For each charge of committing an act prejudicial to racial harmony, Zainal could have been jailed up to three years, fined, or both.

Singapore court jails man for racially offensive tweets, slurs against Indians 

A court in El Salvador has ordered the release of a young woman sentenced to 30 years in prison for homicide following the death of her unborn child in 2012, authorities said on Monday. 
 
Sara Rogel was arrested in October 2012 after going to a hospital with bleeding injuries caused by what she said was a fall while carrying out chores at home. Then a 22-year-old student, Rogel was prosecuted and sentenced for killing her unborn daughter. 
 
Salvadoran law applies one of the world's strictest bans on abortion with no exceptions made for rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk. 
 
More than eight years after Rogel was incarcerated, a judge for the Cojutepeque prison in eastern El Salvador granted her early release after accepting an appeal for pardon from her lawyers, said Ulises Marinero, chief spokesman for the courts. 
 
Rogel will continue, however, to be held in custody because the prosecution still has five days to appeal the decision. 
 
"We feel the ruling is very satisfactory due to the effort we've made to free all these women, who have been criminalised for having had an obstetrical emergency like Sara," her defence attorney Abigail Cortez said.

(With inputs from agencies)

A court in El Salvador has ordered the release of a young woman sentenced to 30 years in prison for homicide following the death of her unborn child in 2012, authorities said on Monday.

A court in El Salvador has ordered the release of a young woman sentenced to 30 years in prison for homicide following the death of her unborn child in 2012, authorities said on Monday. Sara Rogel was arrested in October 2012 after going to a hospital with bleeding injuries caused by what she said was a fall while carrying out chores at home. Then a 22-year-old student, Rogel was prosecuted and sentenced for killing her unborn daughter. Salvadoran law applies one of the world's strictest bans on abortion with no exceptions made for rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk. More than eight years after Rogel was incarcerated, a judge for the Cojutepeque prison in eastern El Salvador granted her early release after accepting an appeal for pardon from her lawyers, said Ulises Marinero, chief spokesman for the courts. Rogel will continue, however, to be held in custody because the prosecution still has five days to appeal the decision. "We feel the ruling is very satisfactory due to the effort we've made to free all these women, who have been criminalised for having had an obstetrical emergency like Sara," her defence attorney Abigail Cortez said. (With inputs from agencies)

El Salvador court to free woman given 30 years for death of foetus

The 47 Hong Kong democratic opposition figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, most of whom have been kept in custody for the past three months, are due to appear in court again on Monday in a widely monitored national security case. 
 
They were arrested on charges of participating in an unofficial, non-binding and independently organised primary vote last year to select candidates for a since-postponed city election, which authorities say was a 'vicious plot' to subvert the government. 
 
The defendants, most of whom were denied bail, are expected in West Kowloon Court at 2:30 pm&nbsp;(0630 GMT) before judge Victor So. Activist Jerry Yuen was among a few dozen people queuing up in the morning for a seat. 
 
"I want to tell my friends among the 47 that they don’t need to worry, as many are determined to fight on," he said. 
 
The charges against the activists, many of whom have announced their retirement from politics, are the most sweeping use yet of the national security law and are punishable with up to life in prison. 
 
Diplomats and rights groups are closely watching the case amid mounting concerns over the independence of the former British colony's judicial system, that is seen as the foundation on which its financial prowess was built. 
 
Marathon bail hearings in March lasted four days and dragged late into the night, causing several defendants to fall ill and seek hospital treatment. Most of the subsequent appeals for bail have been denied. 
 
On Friday, High Court Judge Esther Toh denied former lawmaker Claudia Mo's bail application, citing, among other reasons, her WhatsApp messages with foreign journalists, commenting on news. 
 
In denying bail in mid-March to Jeremy Tam, another former lawmaker, Toh cited an email he received from the US&nbsp;Consulate where he was invited to 'catch up'.&nbsp;His lawyers said he never replied. 
 
The security law sets a high threshold for defendants seeking bail to demonstrate they would not break the law, a departure from common law practice, which puts the onus on prosecutors to make their case for detention as an exception. 
 
The protracted hearings and the reasons for rejecting bail have stunned diplomats and rights groups, who see it as a dramatic display of the Chinese-ruled city's authoritarian turn. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The 47 Hong Kong democratic opposition figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, most of whom have been kept in custody for the past three months, are due to appear in court again on Monday in a widely monitored national security case.

The 47 Hong Kong democratic opposition figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, most of whom have been kept in custody for the past three months, are due to appear in court again on Monday in a widely monitored national security case. They were arrested on charges of participating in an unofficial, non-binding and independently organised primary vote last year to select candidates for a since-postponed city election, which authorities say was a 'vicious plot' to subvert the government. The defendants, most of whom were denied bail, are expected in West Kowloon Court at 2:30 pm (0630 GMT) before judge Victor So. Activist Jerry Yuen was among a few dozen people queuing up in the morning for a seat. "I want to tell my friends among the 47 that they don’t need to worry, as many are determined to fight on," he said. The charges against the activists, many of whom have announced their retirement from politics, are the most sweeping use yet of the national security law and are punishable with up to life in prison. Diplomats and rights groups are closely watching the case amid mounting concerns over the independence of the former British colony's judicial system, that is seen as the foundation on which its financial prowess was built. Marathon bail hearings in March lasted four days and dragged late into the night, causing several defendants to fall ill and seek hospital treatment. Most of the subsequent appeals for bail have been denied. On Friday, High Court Judge Esther Toh denied former lawmaker Claudia Mo's bail application, citing, among other reasons, her WhatsApp messages with foreign journalists, commenting on news. In denying bail in mid-March to Jeremy Tam, another former lawmaker, Toh cited an email he received from the US Consulate where he was invited to 'catch up'. His lawyers said he never replied. The security law sets a high threshold for defendants seeking bail to demonstrate they would not break the law, a departure from common law practice, which puts the onus on prosecutors to make their case for detention as an exception. The protracted hearings and the reasons for rejecting bail have stunned diplomats and rights groups, who see it as a dramatic display of the Chinese-ruled city's authoritarian turn. (With inputs from agencies)

47 HK activists back in court on subversion charges after bail hearings ordeal

An Egyptian court on Sunday rejected a complaint by the Japanese owner of a container ship that blocked traffic in the Suez Canal for six days in March against the vessel's continued detention by canal authorities, a lawyer said.&nbsp;

The Ever Given, one of the world's largest container ships, became jammed across the canal in high winds on March 23, halting traffic in both directions and disrupting global trade.&nbsp;

The complaint was attached to a case at the economic court in Ismailia in which the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) sought $916 million in compensation from the Ever Given's owner Shoei Kisen.&nbsp;

Also on Sunday, the head of the SCA suggested in a TV interview that the canal could accept the reduced sum of $550 million, slightly lower than the $600 million he had mentioned earlier this month for a potential out of court settlement.&nbsp;

SCA Chairman Osama Rabie said a $200 million deposit could be enough to secure the ship's release, with the rest payable separately.&nbsp;

The Ismailia court on Sunday referred the case back to a court of first instance, which is due to consider it on May 29, said Ahmed Abu Ali, one of the lawyers representing the owner.&nbsp;

Any ruling made by the lower court could trigger appeals, said another lawyer, Ahmed Abu Shanab, indicating that legal wrangling could drag on.&nbsp;

In a statement following Sunday's ruling the SCA said it bore no responsibility for the Ever Given's grounding, reasserting that responsibility lay with the ship's captain alone, and rebutting arguments made a day before by Shoei Kisen's legal team.&nbsp;

It also broke down its $916 million claim, citing the costs of freeing the ship and a salvage bonus stipulated in maritime law, material and reputational damage, and the diversion of some shipping away from the canal.&nbsp;

One boat sank during the operation to free the ship, resulting in the death of a worker, the SCA said.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;

An Egyptian court on Sunday rejected a complaint by the Japanese owner of a container ship that blocked traffic in the Suez Canal for six days in March against the vessel's continued detention by canal authorities, a lawyer said.

An Egyptian court on Sunday rejected a complaint by the Japanese owner of a container ship that blocked traffic in the Suez Canal for six days in March against the vessel's continued detention by canal authorities, a lawyer said. The Ever Given, one of the world's largest container ships, became jammed across the canal in high winds on March 23, halting traffic in both directions and disrupting global trade. The complaint was attached to a case at the economic court in Ismailia in which the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) sought $916 million in compensation from the Ever Given's owner Shoei Kisen. Also on Sunday, the head of the SCA suggested in a TV interview that the canal could accept the reduced sum of $550 million, slightly lower than the $600 million he had mentioned earlier this month for a potential out of court settlement. SCA Chairman Osama Rabie said a $200 million deposit could be enough to secure the ship's release, with the rest payable separately. The Ismailia court on Sunday referred the case back to a court of first instance, which is due to consider it on May 29, said Ahmed Abu Ali, one of the lawyers representing the owner. Any ruling made by the lower court could trigger appeals, said another lawyer, Ahmed Abu Shanab, indicating that legal wrangling could drag on. In a statement following Sunday's ruling the SCA said it bore no responsibility for the Ever Given's grounding, reasserting that responsibility lay with the ship's captain alone, and rebutting arguments made a day before by Shoei Kisen's legal team. It also broke down its $916 million claim, citing the costs of freeing the ship and a salvage bonus stipulated in maritime law, material and reputational damage, and the diversion of some shipping away from the canal. One boat sank during the operation to free the ship, resulting in the death of a worker, the SCA said. (With inputs from agencies)

Court allows Suez Canal to keep holding cargo ship Ever Given: Lawyers 

Myanmar's ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in court in person on Monday for the first time since the military arrested her when it seized power on February 1, Myanmar media reported.&nbsp;

One of her lawyers, Min Min Soe, told The Associated Press by phone that Suu Kyi was able to meet with her defence team before her hearing began at a special court set up inside the city council building in Naypyitaw, the capital. The hearing's purpose was procedural.&nbsp;

The lawyers also met with Win Myint, who was president in the government that Suu Kyi led as state counsellor, and a defendant on some of the same charges she faces.&nbsp;

Suu Kyi had been charged with several criminal offenses, but her only previous court appearances had been by video link, and she had not been allowed to meet in person with any of her lawyers.&nbsp;

Min Min Soe said Suu Kyi had a message for Myanmar's people to the effect that her National League for Democracy party would stand by them.&nbsp;

"The main thing (she said) is that she always wishes good health and well-being for all the people, and she also said that since the NLD was founded for the people, the NLD will exist as long as the people exist," said Min Min Soe said after the hearing.&nbsp;

"She looks fresh, healthy and full of confidence," she added.&nbsp;

Monday's hearing concerned several of the six charges Suu Kyi faces.&nbsp;

These are two counts of violating the Natural Disaster Management Law for violating COVID-19 pandemic restrictions during the 2020 election campaign; illegally importing walkie-talkies that were for her bodyguards' use; unlicensed use of the radios; and spreading information that could cause public alarm or unrest.&nbsp;

The most serious charge that Suu Kyi faces is breaching the colonial-era Official Secrets Act, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment, but that is being handled by a separate court.&nbsp;

Suu Kyi's supporters say the proceedings against her are politically motivated and meant to try to legitimise the military's seizure of power and discredit her. If convicted of any of the offences, she could be banned from running in the election that the junta has said it will hold within one or two years of its takeover.&nbsp;

The military ousted Suu Kyi's government less than three months after her National League for Democracy party won a landslide victory in a general election that would have given it a second five-year term in office. Before the start of democratic reforms a decade ago, Myanmar was ruled by the military for 50 years.&nbsp;

Myanmar's ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in court in person on Monday for the first time since the military arrested her when it seized power on February 1, Myanmar media reported.

Myanmar's ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in court in person on Monday for the first time since the military arrested her when it seized power on February 1, Myanmar media reported. One of her lawyers, Min Min Soe, told The Associated Press by phone that Suu Kyi was able to meet with her defence team before her hearing began at a special court set up inside the city council building in Naypyitaw, the capital. The hearing's purpose was procedural. The lawyers also met with Win Myint, who was president in the government that Suu Kyi led as state counsellor, and a defendant on some of the same charges she faces. Suu Kyi had been charged with several criminal offenses, but her only previous court appearances had been by video link, and she had not been allowed to meet in person with any of her lawyers. Min Min Soe said Suu Kyi had a message for Myanmar's people to the effect that her National League for Democracy party would stand by them. "The main thing (she said) is that she always wishes good health and well-being for all the people, and she also said that since the NLD was founded for the people, the NLD will exist as long as the people exist," said Min Min Soe said after the hearing. "She looks fresh, healthy and full of confidence," she added. Monday's hearing concerned several of the six charges Suu Kyi faces. These are two counts of violating the Natural Disaster Management Law for violating COVID-19 pandemic restrictions during the 2020 election campaign; illegally importing walkie-talkies that were for her bodyguards' use; unlicensed use of the radios; and spreading information that could cause public alarm or unrest. The most serious charge that Suu Kyi faces is breaching the colonial-era Official Secrets Act, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment, but that is being handled by a separate court. Suu Kyi's supporters say the proceedings against her are politically motivated and meant to try to legitimise the military's seizure of power and discredit her. If convicted of any of the offences, she could be banned from running in the election that the junta has said it will hold within one or two years of its takeover. The military ousted Suu Kyi's government less than three months after her National League for Democracy party won a landslide victory in a general election that would have given it a second five-year term in office. Before the start of democratic reforms a decade ago, Myanmar was ruled by the military for 50 years.

Myanmar's Suu Kyi makes first in-person court appearance, says party will exist as long as people exist 

A French court on Friday upheld a police ban on a pro-Palestinian demonstration planned for Saturday in Paris, but the organisers said they were not cancelling the march.&nbsp;

Police on Thursday banned Saturday's demonstration called over the ongoing conflict with Israel, fearing a repeat of clashes during a similar protest in 2014.&nbsp;

Following Friday's court ruling, the lawyers now say they will appeal to France's top administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat.&nbsp;However, the protest organisers said they had no plans to call off Saturday's action.&nbsp;

"We refuse to silence our solidarity with the Palestinians, and we will not be prevented from demonstrating," the Association of Palestinians in the Ile-de-France capital region and other groups said shortly after the court ban was announced. &nbsp;

Among the 30 groups planning Saturday's action are anti-fascists and the new Anti-Capitalist party.&nbsp;

Earlier, representatives of the association told AFP that France is "the only democratic country to forbid these demonstrations".&nbsp;

Police on Thursday banned Saturday's demonstration called over the ongoing conflict with Israel, fearing a repeat of clashes during a similar protest in 2014.&nbsp;

Following the failure of their initial petition, the lawyers now say they will appeal to France's top administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat.&nbsp;

Sefen Guez Guez, one of the lawyers, had earlier called the police ban 'disproportionate' and 'politically motivated'.&nbsp;

Paris police chief Didier Lallement said allowing the demonstration would risk "a serious disturbance of public order", adding that he feared "acts against synagogues and Israeli interests".&nbsp;

While he referred to violence at the 2014 demonstration, Guez Guez responded that there had been 'no problem at all' at many protests since.&nbsp;

The planned demonstration would target France's government as well as Israel, with organisers saying Paris is too favourable towards the Middle Eastern state.&nbsp;

President Emmanuel Macron's office said he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, offering his "condolences for the victims of the rocket fire claimed by Hamas and other terrorist groups".&nbsp;

The statement said Macron urged a return to peace, "and also communicated to his counterpart his concern about the civilian population in Gaza".&nbsp;

French politicians were mostly split along party lines over the protest ban, with Macron's centre-right party and the right-wing opposition supporting the move, while leftists called it an unacceptable attack on freedom of expression.&nbsp;

But Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, a Socialist, said the government had made a "wise" decision.&nbsp;

Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin on Thursday told police chiefs elsewhere in France to keep a close eye on planned demonstrations and also ban them if necessary, and to bolster police protection of the Jewish community.&nbsp;

Worldwide, only Israel and the United States have bigger Jewish populations than France.&nbsp;

Beyond the Paris ban, police in Mediterranean port city Marseille said a march there must be converted into a stationary protest, while Darmanin said another in eastern Strasbourg was also blocked.&nbsp;

Police in Lyon and Bordeaux told AFP that there were no restrictions on rallies there.&nbsp;

Israel bombarded Gaza with artillery and air strikes on Friday following a new barrage of rocket fire from the Hamas-run enclave, intensifying a conflict that has now claimed at least 141 lives.&nbsp;

A French court on Friday upheld a police ban on a pro-Palestinian demonstration planned for Saturday in Paris, but the organisers said they were not cancelling the march.

A French court on Friday upheld a police ban on a pro-Palestinian demonstration planned for Saturday in Paris, but the organisers said they were not cancelling the march. Police on Thursday banned Saturday's demonstration called over the ongoing conflict with Israel, fearing a repeat of clashes during a similar protest in 2014. Following Friday's court ruling, the lawyers now say they will appeal to France's top administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat. However, the protest organisers said they had no plans to call off Saturday's action. "We refuse to silence our solidarity with the Palestinians, and we will not be prevented from demonstrating," the Association of Palestinians in the Ile-de-France capital region and other groups said shortly after the court ban was announced. Among the 30 groups planning Saturday's action are anti-fascists and the new Anti-Capitalist party. Earlier, representatives of the association told AFP that France is "the only democratic country to forbid these demonstrations". Police on Thursday banned Saturday's demonstration called over the ongoing conflict with Israel, fearing a repeat of clashes during a similar protest in 2014. Following the failure of their initial petition, the lawyers now say they will appeal to France's top administrative court, the Conseil d'Etat. Sefen Guez Guez, one of the lawyers, had earlier called the police ban 'disproportionate' and 'politically motivated'. Paris police chief Didier Lallement said allowing the demonstration would risk "a serious disturbance of public order", adding that he feared "acts against synagogues and Israeli interests". While he referred to violence at the 2014 demonstration, Guez Guez responded that there had been 'no problem at all' at many protests since. The planned demonstration would target France's government as well as Israel, with organisers saying Paris is too favourable towards the Middle Eastern state. President Emmanuel Macron's office said he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, offering his "condolences for the victims of the rocket fire claimed by Hamas and other terrorist groups". The statement said Macron urged a return to peace, "and also communicated to his counterpart his concern about the civilian population in Gaza". French politicians were mostly split along party lines over the protest ban, with Macron's centre-right party and the right-wing opposition supporting the move, while leftists called it an unacceptable attack on freedom of expression. But Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, a Socialist, said the government had made a "wise" decision. Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin on Thursday told police chiefs elsewhere in France to keep a close eye on planned demonstrations and also ban them if necessary, and to bolster police protection of the Jewish community. Worldwide, only Israel and the United States have bigger Jewish populations than France. Beyond the Paris ban, police in Mediterranean port city Marseille said a march there must be converted into a stationary protest, while Darmanin said another in eastern Strasbourg was also blocked. Police in Lyon and Bordeaux told AFP that there were no restrictions on rallies there. Israel bombarded Gaza with artillery and air strikes on Friday following a new barrage of rocket fire from the Hamas-run enclave, intensifying a conflict that has now claimed at least 141 lives.

French court bans pro-Palestine demo, organisers defiant 

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims. &nbsp;

Remnants of Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula remain contentious for both sides, with many surviving 'comfort women', a Japanese euphemism for the sex abuse victims, demanding Tokyo's formal apology and compensation.&nbsp;

Diplomatic tension flared in January when another judge at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favour of other women in a separate case, ordering Japan to pay compensation for the first time. That verdict had drawn a rebuke from Tokyo, which says the issue was settled under a 1965 treaty and a 2015 deal.&nbsp;

But on Wednesday, a judge at the same court recognised Japan's right to state immunity from overseas lawsuits, contradicting the January ruling that Japan could not assert immunity for 'a crime against humanity’. &nbsp;

"If an exception on state immunity is acknowledged, a diplomatic clash would be inevitable during the process of forcing the ruling’s implementation," judge Min Seong-cheol said, dismissing the latest case brought by the 20 ‘comfort women’ victims and their relatives. &nbsp;

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said after Wednesday's ruling that the Japanese government cannot be subject to South Korean jurisdiction and the entire lawsuit should be dropped. &nbsp;

"As the Japanese government, we will continue to strongly ask the South Korean side for an appropriate action," Kato said, during a regular briefing.&nbsp;

Lee Yong-soo, a 'comfort women' victim and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling 'absurd, nonsense’, saying she would seek international litigation over the case. &nbsp;

Justice Min also said the issue should be resolved via diplomatic consultations, and the 2015 agreement could provide the groundwork for a solution despite some flaws in negotiations. &nbsp;

Under that deal, Tokyo issued an official apology and provided 1 billion yen ($9.3 million) to a fund to help comfort women victims, with both sides promising to 'irreversibly' end the dispute.&nbsp;

But some victims, including Lee, had rejected the settlement saying the government did not sufficiently consult them during the negotiations.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims.

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims. Remnants of Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula remain contentious for both sides, with many surviving 'comfort women', a Japanese euphemism for the sex abuse victims, demanding Tokyo's formal apology and compensation. Diplomatic tension flared in January when another judge at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favour of other women in a separate case, ordering Japan to pay compensation for the first time. That verdict had drawn a rebuke from Tokyo, which says the issue was settled under a 1965 treaty and a 2015 deal. But on Wednesday, a judge at the same court recognised Japan's right to state immunity from overseas lawsuits, contradicting the January ruling that Japan could not assert immunity for 'a crime against humanity’. "If an exception on state immunity is acknowledged, a diplomatic clash would be inevitable during the process of forcing the ruling’s implementation," judge Min Seong-cheol said, dismissing the latest case brought by the 20 ‘comfort women’ victims and their relatives. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said after Wednesday's ruling that the Japanese government cannot be subject to South Korean jurisdiction and the entire lawsuit should be dropped. "As the Japanese government, we will continue to strongly ask the South Korean side for an appropriate action," Kato said, during a regular briefing. Lee Yong-soo, a 'comfort women' victim and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling 'absurd, nonsense’, saying she would seek international litigation over the case. Justice Min also said the issue should be resolved via diplomatic consultations, and the 2015 agreement could provide the groundwork for a solution despite some flaws in negotiations. Under that deal, Tokyo issued an official apology and provided 1 billion yen ($9.3 million) to a fund to help comfort women victims, with both sides promising to 'irreversibly' end the dispute. But some victims, including Lee, had rejected the settlement saying the government did not sufficiently consult them during the negotiations. (With inputs from agencies)

South Korean court dismisses lawsuit by 'comfort women', contradicts earlier ruling 

Namibia's High Court on Monday ruled against a gay couple battling to obtain travel documents for their twin daughters, born to a surrogate in South Africa, after authorities refused to do so on the basis the infants were not citizens.&nbsp;

Namibian Phillip Luhl and his Mexican husband Guillermo Delgado had already been fighting for citizenship for their two-year-old son when the twins, born in March, were refused the documents required to enter Namibia. Namibian authorities say Luhl must prove a genetic link to the children.&nbsp;

In an urgent application to the court, the fathers asked the judge to compel the home affairs ministry to issue the documents to bring their new daughters home.&nbsp;

Judge Thomas Masuku refused, however, saying such an order would be 'judicial overreach'. &nbsp;

Namibia's legal system does not recognise same-sex marriages and criminalises sexual contact between men, though the law is seldom, if ever, enforced.&nbsp;

The Ministry of Home Affairs said no one was immediately available to comment on the ruling on Monday. &nbsp;

Luhl said that the couple would have to study the ruling before deciding on the next steps. &nbsp;

"(It's an) unexpected judgment and, on a personal level, quite a big blow to us," he said, adding it was evidence of resistance at all levels in Namibia on progress towards equal rights. &nbsp;

While the South African surrogacy process requires a genetic link, the couple argue that requiring evidence of a genetic link to obtain citizenship has no basis in law and was discriminatory, because both fathers are legal parents. &nbsp;

Monday's ruling means the family will remain separated, with Luhl in South Africa with the twins and Delgado in Namibia with the couple’s son, while a judgment in their larger citizenship case is pending. &nbsp;

Human Rights lawyer Norman Tjombe, who was not involved in the case, said the judgment was a blatant violation of the rights of the children and reflected the government's stance on same-sex marriage. &nbsp;

"Had the children being born from a heterosexual marriage, no questions would have been asked about the paternity," he said, adding the children were entitled to citizenship by descent like any other child born outside the country to a Namibian parent.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Namibia's High Court on Monday ruled against a gay couple battling to obtain travel documents for their twin daughters, born to a surrogate in South Africa, after authorities refused to do so on the basis the infants were not citizens.

Namibia's High Court on Monday ruled against a gay couple battling to obtain travel documents for their twin daughters, born to a surrogate in South Africa, after authorities refused to do so on the basis the infants were not citizens. Namibian Phillip Luhl and his Mexican husband Guillermo Delgado had already been fighting for citizenship for their two-year-old son when the twins, born in March, were refused the documents required to enter Namibia. Namibian authorities say Luhl must prove a genetic link to the children. In an urgent application to the court, the fathers asked the judge to compel the home affairs ministry to issue the documents to bring their new daughters home. Judge Thomas Masuku refused, however, saying such an order would be 'judicial overreach'. Namibia's legal system does not recognise same-sex marriages and criminalises sexual contact between men, though the law is seldom, if ever, enforced. The Ministry of Home Affairs said no one was immediately available to comment on the ruling on Monday. Luhl said that the couple would have to study the ruling before deciding on the next steps. "(It's an) unexpected judgment and, on a personal level, quite a big blow to us," he said, adding it was evidence of resistance at all levels in Namibia on progress towards equal rights. While the South African surrogacy process requires a genetic link, the couple argue that requiring evidence of a genetic link to obtain citizenship has no basis in law and was discriminatory, because both fathers are legal parents. Monday's ruling means the family will remain separated, with Luhl in South Africa with the twins and Delgado in Namibia with the couple’s son, while a judgment in their larger citizenship case is pending. Human Rights lawyer Norman Tjombe, who was not involved in the case, said the judgment was a blatant violation of the rights of the children and reflected the government's stance on same-sex marriage. "Had the children being born from a heterosexual marriage, no questions would have been asked about the paternity," he said, adding the children were entitled to citizenship by descent like any other child born outside the country to a Namibian parent. (With inputs from agencies)

Court rules against gay couple in fight to take newborns home in Namibia 

Actor-activist Vira Sathidar, best known for featuring in the National Award-winning film 'Court', died on Tuesday due to COVID-19 related complications, filmmaker Chaitanya Tamhane confirmed. 
 
The actor was put on ventilator a few days back and breathed his last in the early hours of Monday. Tamhane directed him the critically acclaimed. 
 
According to Tamhane, who directed him in the acclaimed 2014 "Court", the actor was put on ventilator and breathed his last around 3 AM. 
 
"It's true. He passed away at around 3 AM in the hospital. He had COVID-19 and was on ventilator. It's an extremely unfortunate news. It is yet to sink in," Tamhane told a news agency. 
 
Sathidar rose to prominence after playing the role of protest singer NaNarayan Kamble in 'Court', who is accused of encouraging a manhole worker to commit suicide through one of his folk songs. 
 
Tamhane said the news of Sathidar's demise has come as a "huge shock" to him. 
 
"He was not only an actor, activist and a poet but also one of the nicest human beings I've met. I still can't process it. He was a fantastic person and I can now only think of the time we spent making 'Court,'" the director added. 
 
Apart from 'Court', which was India's official entry to Oscars 2016, Sathidar went on to feature in two more short films.&nbsp;

Actor-activist Vira Sathidar, best known for featuring in the National Award-winning film 'Court', died on Tuesday due to COVID-19 related complications, filmmaker Chaitanya Tamhane confirmed.

Actor-activist Vira Sathidar, best known for featuring in the National Award-winning film 'Court', died on Tuesday due to COVID-19 related complications, filmmaker Chaitanya Tamhane confirmed. The actor was put on ventilator a few days back and breathed his last in the early hours of Monday. Tamhane directed him the critically acclaimed. According to Tamhane, who directed him in the acclaimed 2014 "Court", the actor was put on ventilator and breathed his last around 3 AM. "It's true. He passed away at around 3 AM in the hospital. He had COVID-19 and was on ventilator. It's an extremely unfortunate news. It is yet to sink in," Tamhane told a news agency. Sathidar rose to prominence after playing the role of protest singer NaNarayan Kamble in 'Court', who is accused of encouraging a manhole worker to commit suicide through one of his folk songs. Tamhane said the news of Sathidar's demise has come as a "huge shock" to him. "He was not only an actor, activist and a poet but also one of the nicest human beings I've met. I still can't process it. He was a fantastic person and I can now only think of the time we spent making 'Court,'" the director added. Apart from 'Court', which was India's official entry to Oscars 2016, Sathidar went on to feature in two more short films.

'Court' actor, activist Vira Sathidar dies of COVID-19 complications

A Taiwan court on Saturday released on bond the manager of a construction site whose truck authorities believe caused a train accident that killed at least 51 people, as family members mourned the dead at the crash site.

The crash on Friday was Taiwan’s worst rail accident in seven decades, when an express train hit the truck that had slid down a bank beside the track from the building site. The site’s manager is suspected of having failed to properly engage the truck’s brake.

The train, with almost 500 people aboard, was travelling from Taipei, the capital, to Taitung on the east coast when it derailed in a tunnel just north of the city of Hualien. Forty one people are in hospital, from among the 188 reported injured.

Prosecutors had applied to a court to detain the manager on charges of causing death by negligence, a justice ministry official told reporters on Saturday.

But a court in Hualien released the manager, Lee Yi-hsiang, on a bond of T$500,000 ($17,525), although it restricted him from leaving Taiwan for eight months and said he had to stay in Hualien.

The court said that while the truck’s fall into the path of the train was possibly due to negligence, there was ‘no possibility of conspiracy’.

Yu Hsiu-duan, head of the Hualien prosecutors’ office, said they were not pleased with the decision. 
"The court said there was no reason to keep him in custody," she told reporters. "The court changed it to a surety of $T500,000."

Lee’s court-appointed lawyer declined to comment to reporters as he left the court. 
Lin Jinn-tsun, head of the Justice Ministry’s Prosecutorial Affairs Department, said they had lodged an appeal against the decision to release Lee on bond.

Family members visited the site on Saturday afternoon to mourn the dead, some crying out ‘Come back!’, and bringing personal belongings with them like dolls.

The youngest person confirmed to have died was a six-year-old girl, the oldest a 79-year-old man, according to a government-issued casualty list.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A Taiwan court on Saturday released on bond the manager of a construction site whose truck authorities believe caused a train accident that killed at least 51 people, as family members mourned the dead at the crash site.

A Taiwan court on Saturday released on bond the manager of a construction site whose truck authorities believe caused a train accident that killed at least 51 people, as family members mourned the dead at the crash site. The crash on Friday was Taiwan’s worst rail accident in seven decades, when an express train hit the truck that had slid down a bank beside the track from the building site. The site’s manager is suspected of having failed to properly engage the truck’s brake. The train, with almost 500 people aboard, was travelling from Taipei, the capital, to Taitung on the east coast when it derailed in a tunnel just north of the city of Hualien. Forty one people are in hospital, from among the 188 reported injured. Prosecutors had applied to a court to detain the manager on charges of causing death by negligence, a justice ministry official told reporters on Saturday. But a court in Hualien released the manager, Lee Yi-hsiang, on a bond of T$500,000 ($17,525), although it restricted him from leaving Taiwan for eight months and said he had to stay in Hualien. The court said that while the truck’s fall into the path of the train was possibly due to negligence, there was ‘no possibility of conspiracy’. Yu Hsiu-duan, head of the Hualien prosecutors’ office, said they were not pleased with the decision. "The court said there was no reason to keep him in custody," she told reporters. "The court changed it to a surety of $T500,000." Lee’s court-appointed lawyer declined to comment to reporters as he left the court. Lin Jinn-tsun, head of the Justice Ministry’s Prosecutorial Affairs Department, said they had lodged an appeal against the decision to release Lee on bond. Family members visited the site on Saturday afternoon to mourn the dead, some crying out ‘Come back!’, and bringing personal belongings with them like dolls. The youngest person confirmed to have died was a six-year-old girl, the oldest a 79-year-old man, according to a government-issued casualty list. (With inputs from agencies)

Taiwan court releases train crash suspect on bond as prosecutors lodge appeal

A Pakistani court directed authorities to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the organisers of this year's Aurat March in Islamabad for allegedly displaying 'obscene posters' and making sacrilegious remarks against religious personalities.&nbsp;

A local court in Karachi directed on Saturday the police to record the statement of an applicant and, if any cognizable offence was made out, then register an FIR against the organisers of the march in Islamabad, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported.&nbsp;

The Aurat March is an annually-held demonstration, organised in various cities of Pakistan including Lahore, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar to observe International Women's Day.&nbsp;

The directive comes two days after a similar order was issued by a local court in Peshawar, which had ordered the registration of an FIR on Thursday.&nbsp;

On Saturday, the additional district and sessions judge (South) gave this direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the City Courts police station on an application, filed by Advocate G M Arain under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the same SHO for allegedly not entertaining his request to register an FIR against the organisers of the Aurat March. &nbsp;

In the application, Arain contended that the respondents, including Marvi Sarmad, Tooba Syed and others, had organised an event by the name of Aurat March in Islamabad on March 8.&nbsp;

He further mentioned that vulgar and anti-Islam slogans were raised during the event. According to Dawn, the applicant stated that he, along with other members of the Karachi Bar Association, had watched the event's telecast on television channels from the capital.&nbsp;

He alleged that during the event, sacrilegious remarks were made about respectable religious personalities and their wives, adding that provocative slogans were also raised. &nbsp;

Earlier this month, a video from the demonstration held in Karachi was doctored to falsely show participants raising blasphemous slogans and widely shared online. The organisers of Aurat March clarified that the participants of the march did not raise such slogans and their video was edited to defame their struggle. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A Pakistani court directed authorities to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the organisers of this year's Aurat March in Islamabad for allegedly displaying 'obscene posters' and making sacrilegious remarks against religious personalities.

A Pakistani court directed authorities to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the organisers of this year's Aurat March in Islamabad for allegedly displaying 'obscene posters' and making sacrilegious remarks against religious personalities. A local court in Karachi directed on Saturday the police to record the statement of an applicant and, if any cognizable offence was made out, then register an FIR against the organisers of the march in Islamabad, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported. The Aurat March is an annually-held demonstration, organised in various cities of Pakistan including Lahore, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar to observe International Women's Day. The directive comes two days after a similar order was issued by a local court in Peshawar, which had ordered the registration of an FIR on Thursday. On Saturday, the additional district and sessions judge (South) gave this direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the City Courts police station on an application, filed by Advocate G M Arain under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the same SHO for allegedly not entertaining his request to register an FIR against the organisers of the Aurat March. In the application, Arain contended that the respondents, including Marvi Sarmad, Tooba Syed and others, had organised an event by the name of Aurat March in Islamabad on March 8. He further mentioned that vulgar and anti-Islam slogans were raised during the event. According to Dawn, the applicant stated that he, along with other members of the Karachi Bar Association, had watched the event's telecast on television channels from the capital. He alleged that during the event, sacrilegious remarks were made about respectable religious personalities and their wives, adding that provocative slogans were also raised. Earlier this month, a video from the demonstration held in Karachi was doctored to falsely show participants raising blasphemous slogans and widely shared online. The organisers of Aurat March clarified that the participants of the march did not raise such slogans and their video was edited to defame their struggle. (With inputs from agencies)

Pak court orders registration of FIR against Aurat March organisers  

Danish toymaker Lego on Wednesday won the backing of Europe's second-highest court in its fight to secure design rights for its colourful snap-together plastic building bricks familiar to millions of children worldwide.&nbsp;

The Luxembourg-based General Court threw out a 2019 decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that sided with German toy and hardware maker Delta Sport Handelskontor, which had sought to declare Lego's design invalid.&nbsp;

Lego challenged that ruling at the court, which on Wednesday disagreed with the trademark agency's assessment.&nbsp;

"EUIPO erroneously declared invalid a design of a brick of a LEGO toy building set," judges said.&nbsp;

"EUIPO failed to examine the relevance of the application of the exception relied on by Lego and failed to take into consideration all the features of appearance of the brick," they said.&nbsp;

The trademark agency in its decision two years ago said the design of Lego bricks were solely dictated by their technical function, which is to allow assembly with, and disassembly from, the rest of the bricks of the set.&nbsp;

The court's decision can be appealed to the EU Court of Justice, Europe's highest. The case is T-515/19 Lego A/S v EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Danish toymaker Lego on Wednesday won the backing of Europe's second-highest court in its fight to secure design rights for its colourful snap-together plastic building bricks familiar to millions of children worldwide.

Danish toymaker Lego on Wednesday won the backing of Europe's second-highest court in its fight to secure design rights for its colourful snap-together plastic building bricks familiar to millions of children worldwide. The Luxembourg-based General Court threw out a 2019 decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that sided with German toy and hardware maker Delta Sport Handelskontor, which had sought to declare Lego's design invalid. Lego challenged that ruling at the court, which on Wednesday disagreed with the trademark agency's assessment. "EUIPO erroneously declared invalid a design of a brick of a LEGO toy building set," judges said. "EUIPO failed to examine the relevance of the application of the exception relied on by Lego and failed to take into consideration all the features of appearance of the brick," they said. The trademark agency in its decision two years ago said the design of Lego bricks were solely dictated by their technical function, which is to allow assembly with, and disassembly from, the rest of the bricks of the set. The court's decision can be appealed to the EU Court of Justice, Europe's highest. The case is T-515/19 Lego A/S v EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH. (With inputs from agencies)

EU court backs Lego in German design rights case 

The traditional French practice of trapping songbirds with glue is illegal and cannot be authorised by the state, the EU Court of Justice said on Wednesday, handing a victory to bird lovers.&nbsp;

France is the only country in the European Union to allow the catching of birds, in parts of the south, by pasting glue on sticks or tree trunks, or using snares and nets, despite a 1979 EU ban.&nbsp;

"A member state may not authorise a method of capture of birds ... which is likely to cause other than negligible harm to the species concerned," the court said in a statement.&nbsp;

Under a 1989 decree allowing glue trapping as long as it is 'selective, controlled and in limited quantity', France has allowed the practice every year despite protests by bird lovers.&nbsp;

"It's a great victory for the Bird Protection Association, which has been advocating for years" against the practice, the association said in a statement.&nbsp;

The association says glue trapping is a 'cruel and odious' practice from a bygone era and that France should join other EU nations in outlawing it completely.&nbsp;

The injuries suffered by the birds were acknowledged by the EU Court of Justice, which argued that the captured birds can sustain irreparable harm, since the glue can damage feathers.&nbsp;

The French Ecology Ministry is yet to react to the decision. In August 2020, President Emmanuel Macron suspended glue trapping pending a ruling by the court.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The traditional French practice of trapping songbirds with glue is illegal and cannot be authorised by the state, the EU Court of Justice said on Wednesday, handing a victory to bird lovers.

The traditional French practice of trapping songbirds with glue is illegal and cannot be authorised by the state, the EU Court of Justice said on Wednesday, handing a victory to bird lovers. France is the only country in the European Union to allow the catching of birds, in parts of the south, by pasting glue on sticks or tree trunks, or using snares and nets, despite a 1979 EU ban. "A member state may not authorise a method of capture of birds ... which is likely to cause other than negligible harm to the species concerned," the court said in a statement. Under a 1989 decree allowing glue trapping as long as it is 'selective, controlled and in limited quantity', France has allowed the practice every year despite protests by bird lovers. "It's a great victory for the Bird Protection Association, which has been advocating for years" against the practice, the association said in a statement. The association says glue trapping is a 'cruel and odious' practice from a bygone era and that France should join other EU nations in outlawing it completely. The injuries suffered by the birds were acknowledged by the EU Court of Justice, which argued that the captured birds can sustain irreparable harm, since the glue can damage feathers. The French Ecology Ministry is yet to react to the decision. In August 2020, President Emmanuel Macron suspended glue trapping pending a ruling by the court. (With inputs from agencies)

European court outlaws French practice of trapping songbirds with glue  

A German court sentenced a former member of President Bashar al-Assad's security services to 4-1/2 years in prison on Wednesday for abetting the torture of civilians, the first such verdict for crimes against humanity in the 10-year-old Syrian civil war.&nbsp;

The higher regional court in the western city of Koblenz said Eyad A had arrested at least 30 anti-government protesters at the start of the conflict in 2011 and sent them to an intelligence facility where he knew detainees were tortured.&nbsp;

The verdict gives hope to the 800,000 Syrians in Germany, who say they were tortured in government facilities after attempts to establish an international tribunal for Syria failed.&nbsp;

"This is an important step forward in the process of securing accountability for the Syrian government's systematic use of torture against civilians," said Steve Kostas, a lawyer with the Open Society Foundation's Justice Initiative, which is representing Syrian plaintiffs.&nbsp;

The Assad government denies it tortures prisoners.&nbsp;

Eyad A's lawyers asked for an acquittal, saying he had carried out the arrests in and around Damascus under duress by his superiors. He asked the court to consider him a witness in broader legal efforts against the Syrian government.&nbsp;

Handcuffed and wearing a burgundy track suit, Eyad A, who arrived in Germany in 2018 and was granted asylum, covered his face with a paper document as policemen walked him to a glass cubicle to await the verdict.&nbsp;

He remained stoic and did not appear surprised as the verdict was read out, said two Syrian lawyers at the court.&nbsp;

The case against him was mainly based on evidence of his work for the intelligence service that he had given to German immigration authorities and police when he applied for asylum.&nbsp;

A German court sentenced a former member of President Bashar al-Assad's security services to 4-1/2 years in prison on Wednesday for abetting the torture of civilians, the first such verdict for crimes against humanity in the 10-year-old Syrian civil war.

A German court sentenced a former member of President Bashar al-Assad's security services to 4-1/2 years in prison on Wednesday for abetting the torture of civilians, the first such verdict for crimes against humanity in the 10-year-old Syrian civil war. The higher regional court in the western city of Koblenz said Eyad A had arrested at least 30 anti-government protesters at the start of the conflict in 2011 and sent them to an intelligence facility where he knew detainees were tortured. The verdict gives hope to the 800,000 Syrians in Germany, who say they were tortured in government facilities after attempts to establish an international tribunal for Syria failed. "This is an important step forward in the process of securing accountability for the Syrian government's systematic use of torture against civilians," said Steve Kostas, a lawyer with the Open Society Foundation's Justice Initiative, which is representing Syrian plaintiffs. The Assad government denies it tortures prisoners. Eyad A's lawyers asked for an acquittal, saying he had carried out the arrests in and around Damascus under duress by his superiors. He asked the court to consider him a witness in broader legal efforts against the Syrian government. Handcuffed and wearing a burgundy track suit, Eyad A, who arrived in Germany in 2018 and was granted asylum, covered his face with a paper document as policemen walked him to a glass cubicle to await the verdict. He remained stoic and did not appear surprised as the verdict was read out, said two Syrian lawyers at the court. The case against him was mainly based on evidence of his work for the intelligence service that he had given to German immigration authorities and police when he applied for asylum.

German court issues guilty verdict in first Syria torture trial

A Tunisian court on Wednesday set bail for media mogul and former presidential candidate Nabil Karoui at 10 million dinars ($3.7 million) as he awaits trial on corruption charges that he denies, the court spokesman Mohsen Dali said.&nbsp;

Karoui, the owner of Nessma television channel and head of the Heart of Tunisia political party, the second largest in parliament, was detained in December for a second time for alleged money laundering and tax fraud.&nbsp;

In 2019, Karoui beat most candidates to reach a run-off for the presidency despite spending most of the campaign behind bars. He ultimately lost in a landslide to President Kais Saied.&nbsp;

His Heart of Tunisia party, which came second only to the moderate Islamist Ennahda in a parliamentary election the same year, has joined with it in giving narrow majority support to Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi's government, which has been locked in a power struggle with the president.&nbsp;

Karoui's critics regard him as a corrupt populist wrongfully using his television station and a charity he owns for personal political gain. His supporters view him as a champion of Tunisia's poor and regard his detention as politically motivated.&nbsp;

Tunisia, the only country to emerge with an intact democracy from the 'Arab Spring' revolts a decade ago, has since been plagued by political turmoil and economic hardship.&nbsp;

A Tunisian court on Wednesday set bail for media mogul and former presidential candidate Nabil Karoui at 10 million dinars ($3.7 million) as he awaits trial on corruption charges that he denies, the court spokesman Mohsen Dali said.

A Tunisian court on Wednesday set bail for media mogul and former presidential candidate Nabil Karoui at 10 million dinars ($3.7 million) as he awaits trial on corruption charges that he denies, the court spokesman Mohsen Dali said. Karoui, the owner of Nessma television channel and head of the Heart of Tunisia political party, the second largest in parliament, was detained in December for a second time for alleged money laundering and tax fraud. In 2019, Karoui beat most candidates to reach a run-off for the presidency despite spending most of the campaign behind bars. He ultimately lost in a landslide to President Kais Saied. His Heart of Tunisia party, which came second only to the moderate Islamist Ennahda in a parliamentary election the same year, has joined with it in giving narrow majority support to Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi's government, which has been locked in a power struggle with the president. Karoui's critics regard him as a corrupt populist wrongfully using his television station and a charity he owns for personal political gain. His supporters view him as a champion of Tunisia's poor and regard his detention as politically motivated. Tunisia, the only country to emerge with an intact democracy from the 'Arab Spring' revolts a decade ago, has since been plagued by political turmoil and economic hardship.

Tunisian court sets bail for media mogul Nabil Karoui at $3.7 million

A German court on Wednesday sentenced an Iraqi preacher to more than 10 years in prison after finding him guilty of taking part in planning an attack in Germany and collecting funds and fighters for the Islamic State militant group.&nbsp;

Prosecutors accused the 40-year-old preacher, identified as Ahmad Abdulaziz Abdullah A in court documents, of recruiting at least seven individuals, who ended up travelling to the Middle East where they fought alongside IS.&nbsp;

Two of the men he recruited are believed to have killed more than 150 Iraqi soldiers in suicide bombings.&nbsp;

The Higher Regional Court in the northern city of Celle sentenced him to 10-and-a-half years in prison. Three members of the Islamist network he had set up were handed prison terms ranging from four to eight years.&nbsp;

The main suspect, known by the nickname Abu Walaa, which in Arabic means Father of Loyalty, and the three others were arrested in November 2016 in raids in the states of Lower Saxony and North-Rhine Westphalia.&nbsp;

Abu Walaa sat quietly on the stand in court wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, a white T-Shirt and a face mask that covered parts of this long black beard as he waited for the verdict and sentencing behind a glass cubicle.&nbsp;

The defendants had chosen to remain silent during the trial and did not enter pleas.&nbsp;

Originally an offshoot of al Qaeda, Islamic State took large parts of Iraq and Syria from 2014, imposing a hardline rule with public beheadings and attacks by supporters abroad.&nbsp;

It was defeated by a US-led military coalition, which in 2019 captured the group's last territory in Syria.&nbsp;

The men had held religious lessons during which potential recruits were handed radical Islamic material, prosecutors said.&nbsp;

Prosecutors believe Abu Walaa preached at the Fussilet Mosque in Berlin, which was attended by a failed asylum seeker, who killed 12 people at a Christmas market in the German capital last year.&nbsp;

A German court on Wednesday sentenced an Iraqi preacher to more than 10 years in prison after finding him guilty of taking part in planning an attack in Germany and collecting funds and fighters for the Islamic State militant group.

A German court on Wednesday sentenced an Iraqi preacher to more than 10 years in prison after finding him guilty of taking part in planning an attack in Germany and collecting funds and fighters for the Islamic State militant group. Prosecutors accused the 40-year-old preacher, identified as Ahmad Abdulaziz Abdullah A in court documents, of recruiting at least seven individuals, who ended up travelling to the Middle East where they fought alongside IS. Two of the men he recruited are believed to have killed more than 150 Iraqi soldiers in suicide bombings. The Higher Regional Court in the northern city of Celle sentenced him to 10-and-a-half years in prison. Three members of the Islamist network he had set up were handed prison terms ranging from four to eight years. The main suspect, known by the nickname Abu Walaa, which in Arabic means Father of Loyalty, and the three others were arrested in November 2016 in raids in the states of Lower Saxony and North-Rhine Westphalia. Abu Walaa sat quietly on the stand in court wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, a white T-Shirt and a face mask that covered parts of this long black beard as he waited for the verdict and sentencing behind a glass cubicle. The defendants had chosen to remain silent during the trial and did not enter pleas. Originally an offshoot of al Qaeda, Islamic State took large parts of Iraq and Syria from 2014, imposing a hardline rule with public beheadings and attacks by supporters abroad. It was defeated by a US-led military coalition, which in 2019 captured the group's last territory in Syria. The men had held religious lessons during which potential recruits were handed radical Islamic material, prosecutors said. Prosecutors believe Abu Walaa preached at the Fussilet Mosque in Berlin, which was attended by a failed asylum seeker, who killed 12 people at a Christmas market in the German capital last year.

German court sentences IS recruiter to 10-year jail for planning attack

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives.&nbsp;

The 1,086 Myanmar citizens were sent back on three navy ships sent by Myanmar's military, which seized power in a February 1 coup, sparking weeks of protests from pro-democracy activists. Malaysia had initially said it would deport 1,200.&nbsp;

Malaysia vowed not to deport Rohingya Muslims or refugees registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But the agency has said at least six people registered with it were among the deportees. Refugee groups also say asylum seekers from the minority Chin, Kachin and non-Rohingya Muslim communities fleeing conflict and persecution at home are among those being deported.&nbsp;

Malaysia's Immigration Department director-general said the repatriated Myanmar citizens did not include Rohingya refugees or asylum-seekers.&nbsp;

"All of those returned had agreed to be sent back voluntarily without being forced by any party," Khairul Dzaimee Daud said in a statement.&nbsp;

He did not respond to queries on why the repatriation was carried out despite the court-ordered halt.&nbsp;

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had granted a stay until 10 am on Wednesday, when it was scheduled to hear an application by rights groups for a judicial review to suspend the deportation.&nbsp;

Just before the ruling, the migrants were sent by bus from across the country to the naval base at Lumut in western Malaysia where the Myanmar ships were docked.&nbsp;

Those deported had been detained for immigration offences. Malaysia does not formally recognise refugees, treating them as undocumented migrants.&nbsp;

Amnesty International, one of the groups, which requested the judicial review, called the decision to deport without a proper assessment of the returnees 'inhumane and devastating'.&nbsp;

"Using indirect means to push people back to face grave human rights violations is essentially constructive refoulement," Katrina Maliamauv, Amnesty Malaysia director, said in a statement.&nbsp;

"There are still huge, deeply concerning question marks over the status of those sent back today."&nbsp;

The rights groups in their court filing said among the deportees were three people registered with the UNHCR and 17 minors, who have at least one parent in Malaysia.&nbsp;

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives.

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives. The 1,086 Myanmar citizens were sent back on three navy ships sent by Myanmar's military, which seized power in a February 1 coup, sparking weeks of protests from pro-democracy activists. Malaysia had initially said it would deport 1,200. Malaysia vowed not to deport Rohingya Muslims or refugees registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But the agency has said at least six people registered with it were among the deportees. Refugee groups also say asylum seekers from the minority Chin, Kachin and non-Rohingya Muslim communities fleeing conflict and persecution at home are among those being deported. Malaysia's Immigration Department director-general said the repatriated Myanmar citizens did not include Rohingya refugees or asylum-seekers. "All of those returned had agreed to be sent back voluntarily without being forced by any party," Khairul Dzaimee Daud said in a statement. He did not respond to queries on why the repatriation was carried out despite the court-ordered halt. The Kuala Lumpur High Court had granted a stay until 10 am on Wednesday, when it was scheduled to hear an application by rights groups for a judicial review to suspend the deportation. Just before the ruling, the migrants were sent by bus from across the country to the naval base at Lumut in western Malaysia where the Myanmar ships were docked. Those deported had been detained for immigration offences. Malaysia does not formally recognise refugees, treating them as undocumented migrants. Amnesty International, one of the groups, which requested the judicial review, called the decision to deport without a proper assessment of the returnees 'inhumane and devastating'. "Using indirect means to push people back to face grave human rights violations is essentially constructive refoulement," Katrina Maliamauv, Amnesty Malaysia director, said in a statement. "There are still huge, deeply concerning question marks over the status of those sent back today." The rights groups in their court filing said among the deportees were three people registered with the UNHCR and 17 minors, who have at least one parent in Malaysia.

Defying court order, Malaysia deports over 1,000 Myanmar refugees

Ukraine has accused Russia of targeted assassinations of 'perceived opponents' in a case lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, the latest salvo by Kiev in a barrage of legal complaints against Moscow.&nbsp;

The case, which was filed last week, accuses Russia of carrying out 'state-authorised' assassinations "in Russia and on the territory of other states... outside a situation of armed conflict", the court said on Tuesday.&nbsp;

Europeiska Pravda, a Ukrainian news outlet specialising in European affairs, said the complaint included the case of leading Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, who was poisoned last year with the Novichok nerve agent in an attack blamed on Moscow.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russian-court-rejects-kremlin-critic-navalnys-appeal-against-jail-term-365109/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

This could not immediately be confirmed by the Strasbourg court, which provided no details of any of the alleged assassinations in its statement.&nbsp;

It is the ninth case taken by Ukraine against Russia at the ECHR, which hears complaints over alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. &nbsp;

"We have finally done this," said Ivan Lishchyna, Ukraine's deputy justice minister and a commissioner for the rights court.&nbsp;

"We tried to cover all cases for which there is solid evidence of Russian involvement," he said on Facebook.&nbsp;

Ukraine also accuses Russia of failing to investigate the assassinations "and of deliberately mounting cover-up operations aimed at frustrating efforts to find the persons responsible", the court said.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-to-sanction-four-russian-officials-for-crackdown-on-kremlin-critic-navalny-365490">EU to sanction four Russian officials for crackdown on Kremlin critic Navalny</a>

Ukraine argues that they constitute an infringement of the right to life, which is protected by the Convention on Human Rights, to which Russia is a signatory.&nbsp;

Other cases taken by Ukraine relate to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, human rights violations in the Crimea peninsula which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, and Russia's seizure of three Ukrainian navy vessels in the Kerch Strait in 2018.&nbsp;

Ukraine's government has been at war with separatists in eastern Ukraine since pro-Russian militias launched a bid for independence in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Crimea.&nbsp;

Nearly 13,000 people have been killed in the conflict, which deepened Russia's estrangement from the West.&nbsp;

Ukraine has accused Russia of targeted assassinations of 'perceived opponents' in a case lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, the latest salvo by Kiev in a barrage of legal complaints against Moscow.

Ukraine has accused Russia of targeted assassinations of 'perceived opponents' in a case lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, the latest salvo by Kiev in a barrage of legal complaints against Moscow. The case, which was filed last week, accuses Russia of carrying out 'state-authorised' assassinations "in Russia and on the territory of other states... outside a situation of armed conflict", the court said on Tuesday. Europeiska Pravda, a Ukrainian news outlet specialising in European affairs, said the complaint included the case of leading Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, who was poisoned last year with the Novichok nerve agent in an attack blamed on Moscow. × This could not immediately be confirmed by the Strasbourg court, which provided no details of any of the alleged assassinations in its statement. It is the ninth case taken by Ukraine against Russia at the ECHR, which hears complaints over alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. "We have finally done this," said Ivan Lishchyna, Ukraine's deputy justice minister and a commissioner for the rights court. "We tried to cover all cases for which there is solid evidence of Russian involvement," he said on Facebook. Ukraine also accuses Russia of failing to investigate the assassinations "and of deliberately mounting cover-up operations aimed at frustrating efforts to find the persons responsible", the court said. Also Read: EU to sanction four Russian officials for crackdown on Kremlin critic Navalny Ukraine argues that they constitute an infringement of the right to life, which is protected by the Convention on Human Rights, to which Russia is a signatory. Other cases taken by Ukraine relate to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, human rights violations in the Crimea peninsula which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, and Russia's seizure of three Ukrainian navy vessels in the Kerch Strait in 2018. Ukraine's government has been at war with separatists in eastern Ukraine since pro-Russian militias launched a bid for independence in the wake of Moscow's annexation of Crimea. Nearly 13,000 people have been killed in the conflict, which deepened Russia's estrangement from the West.

Ukraine takes Russia to Europe court over 'targeted assassinations'

Malaysia's top court ruled on Friday that a popular online news portal was guilty of contempt for publishing readers' comments that criticised the judiciary, a landmark case slammed by media groups as a clampdown on press freedom.&nbsp;

Attorney General Idrus Harun filed the charges against Malaysiakini and its editor-in-chief Steven Gan over comments made by five readers on the portal last year that he said undermined public confidence in the judiciary.&nbsp;

A seven-member panel in the federal court ruled 6-1 that Malaysiakini was liable for third-party comments but exonerated Gan. It fined Malaysiakini 500,000 ringgit (USD 123,685).&nbsp;

Gan warned the ruling could restrict discussion of issues of public interest.&nbsp;

It will affect not just Malaysiakini. The decision will place an undue burden on media organisations, companies and millions of social media users... It has a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Malaysia," he told reporters.&nbsp;

In an environment where we have a vibrant social media today, it is imperative we explain, we illuminate, we educate... Instead of trying to punish media organisations like Malaysiakini," he said.&nbsp;

Gan also said the hefty fine, more than double what prosecutors sought, was unfair and an attempt to perhaps not just punish us but to shut us down.&nbsp;

Prosecutors have said the portal should be held responsible for publishing the comments. But defence lawyers argued there was no intent of mischief, as the portal was unaware of the comments and had immediately removed them after it was notified by police.&nbsp;

Center for Independent Journalism, a media watchdog, tweeted on Friday that it stands in solidarity with Malaysiakini and strongly condemns efforts by the state to intimidate and threaten media freedom and independence.&nbsp;

Amnesty International Malaysia said it was deeply alarmed by the unprecedented ruling.&nbsp;

Malaysia's top court ruled on Friday that a popular online news portal was guilty of contempt for publishing readers' comments that criticised the judiciary, a landmark case slammed by media groups as a clampdown on press freedom.

Malaysia's top court ruled on Friday that a popular online news portal was guilty of contempt for publishing readers' comments that criticised the judiciary, a landmark case slammed by media groups as a clampdown on press freedom. Attorney General Idrus Harun filed the charges against Malaysiakini and its editor-in-chief Steven Gan over comments made by five readers on the portal last year that he said undermined public confidence in the judiciary. A seven-member panel in the federal court ruled 6-1 that Malaysiakini was liable for third-party comments but exonerated Gan. It fined Malaysiakini 500,000 ringgit (USD 123,685). Gan warned the ruling could restrict discussion of issues of public interest. It will affect not just Malaysiakini. The decision will place an undue burden on media organisations, companies and millions of social media users... It has a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Malaysia," he told reporters. In an environment where we have a vibrant social media today, it is imperative we explain, we illuminate, we educate... Instead of trying to punish media organisations like Malaysiakini," he said. Gan also said the hefty fine, more than double what prosecutors sought, was unfair and an attempt to perhaps not just punish us but to shut us down. Prosecutors have said the portal should be held responsible for publishing the comments. But defence lawyers argued there was no intent of mischief, as the portal was unaware of the comments and had immediately removed them after it was notified by police. Center for Independent Journalism, a media watchdog, tweeted on Friday that it stands in solidarity with Malaysiakini and strongly condemns efforts by the state to intimidate and threaten media freedom and independence. Amnesty International Malaysia said it was deeply alarmed by the unprecedented ruling.

Court finds news portal guilty of contempt over readers' comments in Malaysia

In an appeal hearing to begin on Thursday, Denmark's top court will be asked to decide if coughing at someone while shouting 'corona' constitutes threatening behaviour. &nbsp;

The 20-year-old defendant in the case was arrested in March, when the country was under a full coronavirus lockdown, after subjecting police to what prosecutors called the 'ruthless and thoughtless' actions during a routine traffic stop. He subsequently tested negative for Covid-19.&nbsp;

First acquitted in a local court, he was later convicted of the offence at Denmark's Western High Court and, at his Supreme Court appeal against that conviction, prosecutors are seeking jail term of three to five months. The Supreme Court is expected to give its verdict in the coughing case on February 18.&nbsp;

Other similar incidents of coughing directed at police were reported in Denmark last year, in part a reflection of simmering public discontent in some quarters against the government's handling of the Covid-19 crisis.&nbsp;

The government, which says it follows a 'precautionary principle' in managing the virus, enjoyed almost unequivocal public support for swift action against Covid-19 early last year.&nbsp;

But opposition parties have begun to question what some consider an overly cautious approach as infection rates fall, and 30 per cent of Danes now think, the government's measures are too far-reaching, according to a recent Aarhus University study.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen this week said lifting the lockdown required 'complete epidemic control'.&nbsp;

In recent months, thousands have taken to the streets in protests, some violent, calling for authorities to ease lockdown curbs which they say limit their freedom and are crippling businesses.&nbsp;

Virologists, health authorities and the government have defended the current curbs - which have locked down most of the county apart from essential shops - as vital to contain more infectious coronavirus variants, notably ones first identified in Britain and South Africa, that have reached Denmark.

In an appeal hearing to begin on Thursday, Denmark's top court will be asked to decide if coughing at someone while shouting 'corona' constitutes threatening behaviour.

In an appeal hearing to begin on Thursday, Denmark's top court will be asked to decide if coughing at someone while shouting 'corona' constitutes threatening behaviour. The 20-year-old defendant in the case was arrested in March, when the country was under a full coronavirus lockdown, after subjecting police to what prosecutors called the 'ruthless and thoughtless' actions during a routine traffic stop. He subsequently tested negative for Covid-19. First acquitted in a local court, he was later convicted of the offence at Denmark's Western High Court and, at his Supreme Court appeal against that conviction, prosecutors are seeking jail term of three to five months. The Supreme Court is expected to give its verdict in the coughing case on February 18. Other similar incidents of coughing directed at police were reported in Denmark last year, in part a reflection of simmering public discontent in some quarters against the government's handling of the Covid-19 crisis. The government, which says it follows a 'precautionary principle' in managing the virus, enjoyed almost unequivocal public support for swift action against Covid-19 early last year. But opposition parties have begun to question what some consider an overly cautious approach as infection rates fall, and 30 per cent of Danes now think, the government's measures are too far-reaching, according to a recent Aarhus University study. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen this week said lifting the lockdown required 'complete epidemic control'. In recent months, thousands have taken to the streets in protests, some violent, calling for authorities to ease lockdown curbs which they say limit their freedom and are crippling businesses. Virologists, health authorities and the government have defended the current curbs - which have locked down most of the county apart from essential shops - as vital to contain more infectious coronavirus variants, notably ones first identified in Britain and South Africa, that have reached Denmark.

Danish top court to decide if coughing a crime in pandemic

President Joe Biden's administration has asked a US federal court to pause proceedings aimed at banning TikTok to allow for a fresh review of the national security threat from the popular Chinese-owned video app.&nbsp;

The filing in a federal appeals court said the new administration had begun a review and would not for the moment press for a ban of the mobile app as sought by former president Donald Trump.&nbsp;

The filing said the Commerce Department 'plans to conduct an evaluation of the underlying record justifying those prohibitions' sought by the previous administration of Donald Trump, which claimed TikTok posed a national security threat because of its links to the Chinese government.&nbsp;

After the new review, the administration 'will then be better positioned to determine whether the national security threat' from TikTok.&nbsp;

"The Department of Commerce remains committed to a robust defense of national security as well as ensuring the viability of our economy and preserving individual rights and data privacy," the filing said.&nbsp;

The Trump administration move to ban downloads of TikTok and its presence on online networks had been stalled amid legal challenges.&nbsp;

In a related development, the Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration has also put on hold a plan to force the sale of TikTok to American investors.&nbsp;

The Journal, citing unnamed sources, said the Biden White House had indefinitely shelved the plan to require the sale of TikTok, owned by China's ByteDance, to US tech giant Oracle with Walmart as a partner.&nbsp;

The Journal said the new administration is in the midst of a review of data security and ways to prevent the information TikTok collects on American users from being accessed by the Chinese government, but that there would be no imminent move to force the sale.

President Joe Biden's administration has asked a US federal court to pause proceedings aimed at banning TikTok to allow for a fresh review of the national security threat from the popular Chinese-owned video app.

President Joe Biden's administration has asked a US federal court to pause proceedings aimed at banning TikTok to allow for a fresh review of the national security threat from the popular Chinese-owned video app. The filing in a federal appeals court said the new administration had begun a review and would not for the moment press for a ban of the mobile app as sought by former president Donald Trump. The filing said the Commerce Department 'plans to conduct an evaluation of the underlying record justifying those prohibitions' sought by the previous administration of Donald Trump, which claimed TikTok posed a national security threat because of its links to the Chinese government. After the new review, the administration 'will then be better positioned to determine whether the national security threat' from TikTok. "The Department of Commerce remains committed to a robust defense of national security as well as ensuring the viability of our economy and preserving individual rights and data privacy," the filing said. The Trump administration move to ban downloads of TikTok and its presence on online networks had been stalled amid legal challenges. In a related development, the Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration has also put on hold a plan to force the sale of TikTok to American investors. The Journal, citing unnamed sources, said the Biden White House had indefinitely shelved the plan to require the sale of TikTok, owned by China's ByteDance, to US tech giant Oracle with Walmart as a partner. The Journal said the new administration is in the midst of a review of data security and ways to prevent the information TikTok collects on American users from being accessed by the Chinese government, but that there would be no imminent move to force the sale.

Biden team asks court to pause move to ban TikTok as US reviews security

Eight Islamic extremists were sentenced to death in Bangladesh for the murder of a publisher on Wednesday, as the Muslim-majority nation grapples with tensions between religious hardliners and secularists.&nbsp;

Faisal Arefin Dipan, 43, the owner of a Dhaka-based publishing house that released several atheist books, was hacked to death in October 2015 by men suspected to be members of a local jihadist group.&nbsp;

The attack was part of a wave of violence between 2013 and 2016 targeting secular activists, bloggers and atheist writers.&nbsp;

Several top Islamist political party leaders were hanged over the violence under the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.&nbsp;

Prosecutor Golam Sarwar Zakir said, the judge at Dhaka's Special Anti-Terrorism Tribunal convicted all of the eight accused men.&nbsp;

"He (the judge) said their goal was to muzzle people's voices by murdering bloggers, writers and publishers. They wanted to disrupt public security by creating panic among the people," Zakir said.&nbsp;

Two of the men are still on the loose and were sentenced in absentia, including mastermind Syed Ziaul Haque, a sacked army officer, Zakir added.&nbsp;

Haque has been charged with the killings of several secular activists.&nbsp;

A defence lawyer for the eight men said they would appeal against the sentences.&nbsp;

The Bangladesh government has set up two major anti-terrorism police units in recent years to crack down on Islamic extremists.&nbsp;

More than 100 suspected Islamists have been killed in anti-terror raids across the country and hundreds have been detained. Around half-a-dozen Islamist militant outfits have been banned.&nbsp;

Star Bangladeshi cricketer Shakib Al Hasan has become the latest target of radicals and had to be given an armed bodyguard after he was threatened for attending a Hindu ceremony in neighbouring India.

Eight Islamic extremists were sentenced to death in Bangladesh for the murder of a publisher on Wednesday, as the Muslim-majority nation grapples with tensions between religious hardliners and secularists.

Eight Islamic extremists were sentenced to death in Bangladesh for the murder of a publisher on Wednesday, as the Muslim-majority nation grapples with tensions between religious hardliners and secularists. Faisal Arefin Dipan, 43, the owner of a Dhaka-based publishing house that released several atheist books, was hacked to death in October 2015 by men suspected to be members of a local jihadist group. The attack was part of a wave of violence between 2013 and 2016 targeting secular activists, bloggers and atheist writers. Several top Islamist political party leaders were hanged over the violence under the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Prosecutor Golam Sarwar Zakir said, the judge at Dhaka's Special Anti-Terrorism Tribunal convicted all of the eight accused men. "He (the judge) said their goal was to muzzle people's voices by murdering bloggers, writers and publishers. They wanted to disrupt public security by creating panic among the people," Zakir said. Two of the men are still on the loose and were sentenced in absentia, including mastermind Syed Ziaul Haque, a sacked army officer, Zakir added. Haque has been charged with the killings of several secular activists. A defence lawyer for the eight men said they would appeal against the sentences. The Bangladesh government has set up two major anti-terrorism police units in recent years to crack down on Islamic extremists. More than 100 suspected Islamists have been killed in anti-terror raids across the country and hundreds have been detained. Around half-a-dozen Islamist militant outfits have been banned. Star Bangladeshi cricketer Shakib Al Hasan has become the latest target of radicals and had to be given an armed bodyguard after he was threatened for attending a Hindu ceremony in neighbouring India.

Eight Islamists get death in Bangladesh over publisher’s murder

Famous cartoon character Mickey Mouse -- alongside Buzz Lightyear, Captain Hook and a number of others -- has been listed to appear as defendant at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court.

But this is -- apparently -- a big blunder on someone's part.

The mistake was spotted by divorce barrister Leisha Bond.

It was later revealed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service created the names as tests for a new case management system.

"Sorry for the error," a spokesperson said in a Tweet. "[They] should have been deleted before the lists were published."

Also listed to appear before a crown court judge were Bugs Bunny, Tinker Bell, Sleeping Beauty and Cruella Deville. And their "cases" were listed alongside real defendants, some of whom are due to appear via videolink from prison.

The courts service apologised for the error.

Famous cartoon character Mickey Mouse -- alongside Buzz Lightyear, Captain Hook and a number of others -- has been listed to appear as defendant at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court.

Famous cartoon character Mickey Mouse -- alongside Buzz Lightyear, Captain Hook and a number of others -- has been listed to appear as defendant at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court. But this is -- apparently -- a big blunder on someone's part. The mistake was spotted by divorce barrister Leisha Bond. It was later revealed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service created the names as tests for a new case management system. "Sorry for the error," a spokesperson said in a Tweet. "[They] should have been deleted before the lists were published." Also listed to appear before a crown court judge were Bugs Bunny, Tinker Bell, Sleeping Beauty and Cruella Deville. And their "cases" were listed alongside real defendants, some of whom are due to appear via videolink from prison. The courts service apologised for the error.

Mickey Mouse, other cartoon characters listed for hearing in court error

New Zealand mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 Muslim worshippers last year, has&nbsp;refused the right to speak at his sentencing, as per court officials said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

According to the officials, the 29-year-old Australian white supremacist had sacked his legal team earlier this year and had opted not to personally address the court, however, his lawyer will make a brief statement on his behalf on Thursday.&nbsp;

The massacre that took place last year, prompted a global campaign to stamp out online hate.&nbsp;

According to television footage, Tarrant disembarked a New Zealand air force plane at Christchurch Airport, wearing a protective vest and helmet and escorted by armed officers, before being directed into the back of a white van.&nbsp;

The court in Christchurch has begun multi-day sentencing on Monday, where survivors of the attack and family members of those killed have delivered victim impact statements.

In New Zealand, crimes like murder carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison, however, the judge can impose a life term without the possibility of release, a sentence never used in the country.&nbsp;

New Zealand mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 Muslim worshippers last year, has refused the right to speak at his sentencing, as per court officials said on Wednesday.

New Zealand mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 Muslim worshippers last year, has refused the right to speak at his sentencing, as per court officials said on Wednesday. According to the officials, the 29-year-old Australian white supremacist had sacked his legal team earlier this year and had opted not to personally address the court, however, his lawyer will make a brief statement on his behalf on Thursday. The massacre that took place last year, prompted a global campaign to stamp out online hate. According to television footage, Tarrant disembarked a New Zealand air force plane at Christchurch Airport, wearing a protective vest and helmet and escorted by armed officers, before being directed into the back of a white van. The court in Christchurch has begun multi-day sentencing on Monday, where survivors of the attack and family members of those killed have delivered victim impact statements. In New Zealand, crimes like murder carry a mandatory sentence of life in prison, however, the judge can impose a life term without the possibility of release, a sentence never used in the country.

Christchurch mosque shooter  Brenton Tarrant will not speak at sentencing: Court officials

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after&nbsp;Cristiano&nbsp;Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/Football-news-cristiano-ronaldo-breaks-another-mile-stone-scores-50-goals-of-juventus-278271">Cristiano Ronaldo achieves another milestone, scores 50 goals for Juventus</a>

A district court in Incheon, west of Seoul, ordered the local agency that organised the match, The Fasta Inc, to pay 371,000 won ($312) to both fans listed in the lawsuit.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cristiano-ronaldo-first-to-get-200-million-followers-on-instagram-277492">Cristiano Ronaldo first to get 200 million followers on Instagram</a>

The lawsuit complained that The Fasta Inc had publicised Ronaldo would play for at least 45 minutes, but the Portugal star ultimately sat out the entire game in July 2019.

The court ordered The Fasta Inc to pay 70,000 won ($58.95) per ticket, 1,000 won ($0.8421) for the ticket commission fee, and 300,000 won ($252.63) each for "mental anguish" for the two plaintiffs, lawyer Kim Min-ki who filed the lawsuit, told Reuters.

Kim said he was also representing 87 other plaintiffs in several other cases that were filed in connection with the match.

The Fasta Inc's website was not online as of Tuesday, and phone calls to the company's president were not answered.

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after Cristiano Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday.

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after Cristiano Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday. Also read: Cristiano Ronaldo achieves another milestone, scores 50 goals for Juventus A district court in Incheon, west of Seoul, ordered the local agency that organised the match, The Fasta Inc, to pay 371,000 won ($312) to both fans listed in the lawsuit. Also read: Cristiano Ronaldo first to get 200 million followers on Instagram The lawsuit complained that The Fasta Inc had publicised Ronaldo would play for at least 45 minutes, but the Portugal star ultimately sat out the entire game in July 2019. The court ordered The Fasta Inc to pay 70,000 won ($58.95) per ticket, 1,000 won ($0.8421) for the ticket commission fee, and 300,000 won ($252.63) each for "mental anguish" for the two plaintiffs, lawyer Kim Min-ki who filed the lawsuit, told Reuters. Kim said he was also representing 87 other plaintiffs in several other cases that were filed in connection with the match. The Fasta Inc's website was not online as of Tuesday, and phone calls to the company's president were not answered.

Ronaldo fans entitled to compensation after star's no-show, S.Korean court rules

court

Court, News on Court, stories on Court, articles on Court, Court stories at Wion, Court news, Court latest news