On Tuesday April 9th Georgetown recognizes its 6th annual Denim Day. Denim Day promotes public awareness of sexual violence against women. This year Denim Day is especially noteworthy because of recent rapes that have gathered international notoriety, such as those in India and Brazil.

Denim Day began in 1999 in response to an Italian Supreme Court (Corte de Cassazione) decision that overturned a rape conviction. The case involved a dispute about conset. In the decision on the consent issue, the court found that “it is nearly impossible to slip off the tight jeans even partly without the active collaboration of the person who is wearing them.” In response to this decision female legislators appeared on the doorsteps of Parliament wearing jeaning and holding signs that read “Jeans: An Alibi for Rape.”

There was a second, similar case in 2008 where the Supreme Court (Corte de Cassazione) reviewed a lower court decision with very similar reasoning which had found that “it was impossible to, with the girl wearing jeans and being seated, put his hand under her pants and touch” her. This time high court overturned the lower court and its own 1999 ruling, finding that “[t]he fact that the girl was wearing jeans was not an obstacle to her intimate parts, because it is possible for him to penetrate with his hand under the garment, which is not comparable to a chastity belt.”

This development has “closely aligned the Italian Supreme Court with the European Court of Human Rights’ dictates, and ultimately has marked a step forward towards gender equality and women’s right to sexual autonomy.”

Denim Day endures as a a reminder and as a tool to combat such attitudes.

The electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union has heretofore not been legally valid; a status reserved for the print version. A proposal was drafted to “ensure better access to the law by enabling everyone to rely on the electronic version [] as being official, authentic, up-to-date, and complete.” The Council has been formally invited to adopt the proposal, and “the Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the fourth calendar month following its adoption.” So, we look forward to the e-version of the Official Journal of the EU to be legally valid in the near future.

On June 26 the Landgericht Köln (Cologne Regional Court) ruled that a medically unnecessary circumcision violated a 4 year old boy’s “best interests.” The circumcision was competently performed and there was parental consent. The circumcision was performed because of the parents’ religious beliefs. The case is a criminal prosecution of the performing physician.

In the opinion the court stated:

Nor was the defendant’s act justified by consent. There was no consent by the child, who was four years old at the time, and since the child was not old enough to understand the situation, there was no question of such consent being given. There was consent by the parents, but this was not capable of justifying the commission of the elements of bodily harm.

The opinion is available in German. There is also a partial and unofficial English translation. Additional background information as well as some coverage of related developments in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden is available from Library of Congress’ blog Global Legal Monitor.

The month of July sees New York and the UN host a global arms treaty negotiation, which could result in the first binding treaty to regulate the global arms market. While there is a general consensus that some global controls are needed, there is disagreement about specifics. One major issue is that the major weapons producers, which include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France) plus Germany, have an economic interest in a robust global arms trade.

Armstreaty.org brings us a database which provides information about countries’ positions on the specific issues addressed in the treaty. Especially helpful are the maps, which for any specific issue (e.g. ammunitions) show which countries strongly support, mildly support, or oppose the inclusion of that issue in the treaty. Information can also be viewed by country.

In the “blood diamond” case, former Liberian president Charles Taylor was sentenced to 50 years in prison. His was the first conviction of a head of state by an international tribunal since the Nuremberg trials that followed WWII. He was found guilty by the joint Sierra Leone and UN Special Court for Sierra Leone last month of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court is located in The Hague.

Taylor is 64, and if his entire sentence is carried out, he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. The court is required to set a specific sentence; it cannot prescribe the death penalty or life imprisonment. Taylor is expected to appeal the sentence.

Justice Lussick who read the judgment in court noted that while Taylor’s convictions were for aiding and abetting the commission of crimes and that jurisprudence of the Special Court and related tribunals “holds that aiding and abetting as a mode of liability generally warrants a lesser sentence than that imposed for more direct forms of participation,” Taylor’s leadership role “puts him in a class of his own.” Two rebel commanders tried earlier were sentenced to 50 and 52 years respectively.

In their sentencing, the judges took in to account his good behavior while in detention, while apparently ignoring other mitigating factors proposed by the defense such as his age and health.

Liberia's former President Charles Taylor was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity Thursday by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The court was formed in 2002 to address the UN Security Council’s “deep concern at the very serious crimes committed within the territory of Sierra Leone against the people of Sierra Leone and United Nations and associated personnel and at the prevailing situation of impunity.” The trial was held in The Hague because conducting the proceedings in Sierra Leone itself was deemed potentially too destabilizing for West Africa.

Taylor was found guilty on 11 counts, including murder, conscription of child soldiers, rape and sexual slavery. He was tried for supplying weapons to the brutal rebel group Revolutionary United Front (RUF) during Sierra Leone's bloody civil war, which ended in 2001. In return, the rebels supplied him with raw diamonds, so-called blood diamonds.

The court found Taylor guilty of "sustained and significant" support for the rebels who committed the various atrocities, although it found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of ordering those abuses himself. The trial lasted 5 years and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for late May where Taylor could face life imprisonment.

Taylor is the first African head of state to be tried in an international court and the first former head of state to have a judgment brought against him since the Nuremburg trials that followed WWII. But, another former African head of state, Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, is now awaiting trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is also located in The Hague.