"Michael is an intelligent person and I would think that he would have a better handle on the Middle East given his years of experience on human rights and international law," Kadis said in a written statement.

Ignatieff was trying to clarify previous controversial remarks about Qana on Radio-Canada program Tout le monde en parle on Sunday.

After the air strike that killed more than two dozen people, Ignatieff told the Toronto Star in August that civilian deaths were inevitable in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

"This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that," he said.

Ignatieff soon expressed regret over those remarks and sought to explain what he should have said on Sunday.

"I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that," he said.

'Very troubling' comments

Kadis called the latest comments "very troubling"

Ignatieff released a statement indicating he regretted the decision Kadis made.

The statement also included assertions that "the denial of Israel's right to exist is unconscionable and must stop" and that the country where he said he has lived and taught has "the unequivocal right to defend itself against unprovoked attacks."

He stopped short of calling the Qana attack a war crime.

"Qana was a terrible human tragedy where innocent civilians died in a conflict that saw unjustified tragedies on all sides," he said.

Ignatieff said at a late afternoon news conference he still considered Kadis a close friend and respected colleague.

"The DPRK has exerted every possible effort to settle the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations, prompted by its sincere desire to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," he said.

The DPRK would "feel no need" to possess a single nuclear weapon if the United States "dropped its hostile policy toward the DPRK" and "confidence" was built between the two countries, said the spokesman.

As the DPRK had already pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it was no longer bound by international law, he said, adding that it was "an indication of the disturbing moves" by the United States to "impose collective sanctions" on the DPRK through the U.N. Security Council.

The DPRK was ready for dialogue and consultation, the spokesman said. But the DPRK would continue to "take physical countermeasures" if the United States increased pressure upon it.

The DPRK's official Korean Central News Agency announced on Monday that the country had conducted a successful underground nuclear test, which has drawn the universal opposition of the international community.

The issue of the DPRK's reported nuclear test is still under discussion in the U.N. Security Council.

Both his ministry and the government-affiliated Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety announced Thursday that tests of air samples in South Korea since Monday's declared nuclear test by the North have shown no signs of increased radiation.

"So far, we have not detected any abnormal level of radioactivity," said Han Seung-jae, an official at the nuclear safety institute.

Han cautioned, however, that the finding doesn't indicate that the North didn't conduct a nuclear test or that a test may have failed.

"There had been little chance of radioactivity being blown southward as the wind had been blowing toward north or east for the past few days," he said.

After Monday's underground test, North Korea announced that there had been no radioactivity leaks from the site.

The Sri Lankan military also said an unspecified number of its troops were still missing after the fighting.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) said only 10 of its fighters had been killed, and said the bodies of 75 government troops had been recovered.

A rebel spokesman said Tiger casualties were low because they knew the military was launching an attack and had been ready in well-defended positions to take on the advancing army columns with artillery.

"The LTTE recovered more than 75 bodies of Sri Lankan soldiers," the Tigers said in a statement. "Efforts are now underway to hand over the bodies to the Sri Lankan military through the International Committee of the Red Cross."

As more than 100 troops were evacuated to hospitals in Colombo, 400 kilometres (250 miles) south of the Jaffna peninsula, President Mahinda Rajapakse ordered his ministers to attend to the welfare of the victims.

"The president sent ministers to all the hospitals to attend to the needs of the soldiers," a spokesman said.

The military said its ground offensive, supported by warplanes, was a "defensive act" as a result of Tamil Tiger attacks. Naval gun ships were deployed to prevent rebels sending reinforcements by sea to the peninsula.

"There is no doubt that the army suffered a bloody nose," a top defence source said. "It was a big mistake."

The renewed fighting has come as a blow to efforts by peace broker Norway to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table. Before the latest fighting, the warring parties had voiced willingness to meet in Switzerland later this month.

The LTTE had warned it would reconsider its decision to go to Switzerland for talks if the military launched fresh attacks. The government had said it agreed to talks on the basis that it could defend itself from rebel attacks.

Norway has been working to save a 2002 truce and end spiralling violence, which has claimed over 2,200 lives since December, according to an official tally.

Some 60,000 people have been killed overall in the three-decades-old conflict between minority Tamils seeking an independent homeland and government forces.

The new members will not be able to vote on government matters, but will be able to question the kingdom's new cabinet on policy.

Military officials took 35 seats, with retired government officials filling 43 seats, coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin announced.

Former soldier and politician Chamlong Srimuang, who led the months of anti-Thaksin street protest that led up to the coup, will also join the parliament.

Chamlong, Thaksin's former mentor, led the bloody demonstrations in Bangkok in 1992 that helped topple a military dictatorship and restore democratic rule.

Some 29 academics joined the assembly, which will also include 13 people from non-governmental organizations, 20 from the media and six bankers. Only four are politicians.

Although all the members of the new parliament were chosen by the military, the coup leader insisted the junta would not interfere.

Sonthi said the Senate would "oversee and set directions for drafting a new constitution".

The interim charter grants wide-ranging powers to the leaders of the September 19 coup, formalizing their role in government and giving them the power to sack the new prime minister.

The military leadership has promised a new constitution and a general election by October 2007.

Journalists will be able to publish material if they act responsibly and in the public interest, and be free from the risk of libel damages, even if allegations later prove untrue.

The judges, who constitute Britain's highest court, said that the media were entitled to publish defamatory allegations as part of its duty of neutral reporting, or if it believed them to be of substance, and to raise matters of public interest.

The ruling came in an appeal by The Wall Street Journal Europe against a High Court decision, backed by the Court of Appeal, that it should pay £40,000 damages to Mohammad Jameel, a billionaire Saudi car dealer, whose family owns Harwell Motors in Oxford.

The story, published in February 2002, said that bank accounts associated with a number of prominent Saudi citizens, including Mr Jameel's family and their businesses, had been monitored by the Saudi Government at the request of United States authorities to ensure that no money was provided intentionally or knowingly to support terrorists. The ruling clarifies and simplifies the right of the media to plead the "Reynolds defence" to libel claims, namely that what they published was in the public interest.

Lord Hoffmann, giving the lead judgment, said that the article was a perfect example of journalism for which the public interest defence should be available. It was for judges to apply the public interest test, but the article in the Journal easily passed that test, he said.

Its thrust was to inform the public that the Saudis were co-operating with the US Treasury. "It was a serious contribution in measured tone to a subject of very considerable importance."

It could not be proved true because the existence of covert surveillance would be impossible to prove by evidence in open court. But that did not mean it did not happen.

The newspaper was entitled to report even serious defamations against individuals, so long as they "made a real contribution to the public interest element in the article".

Lord Hoffmann also said that judges, with "leisure and hindsight", should not second-guess editorial decisions made in busy newsrooms. "That would make the publication of articles which are . . . in the public interest too risky and would discourage investigative reporting," he added.

The key test was whether a media organisation or newspaper acted fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information. If the reporter and editor did so, and the information was of public importance, then the fact that it contained relevant but defamatory allegations against prominent people would not permit them to recover libel damages.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior law lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond agreed. Lady Hale said: "We need more such serious journalism in this country and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it."

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who argued the case for the paper, said the decision gave British media more freedom to publish newsworthy stories.

Caroline Kean, litigation partner at the media law firm Wiggin, said: "This ruling is extremely important because it makes clear it is not appropriate for 'responsible journalism' to be interpreted narrowly."