JURIST - Paper Chase

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged [press release] the Sudanese government on Tuesday to stop its alleged press censorship. AI reports that Sudanese authorities have on several occasions have seized newspapers from the printing press. Additionally, a prominent columnist was arrested and remains in custody after publishing a report on an alleged rape by a Sudanese security agent. In a statement, AI's Sudan researcher Jean-Baptiste Gallopin condemned the government's actions:

The Sudanese government is continuing its relentless harassment of journalists and editors who dare to do their job. The authorities are deploying a wide array of coercive measures against individuals and media organizations to discourage or prevent independent reporting and critical comment. The [arrest] of Faisal Saleh is a smack in the face for free speech and the Sudanese authorities must ... [end] these constant attempts to silence any form of dissent.

In addition to alleged direct censorship, AI has called on Sudanese authorities to cease all intimidation tactics designed to influence the press.

Press freedom continues to be a crucial human rights issue around the world. In March, UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya [official website] outlined the risks and challenges faced by human rights journalists and media workers [JURIST report], and called for additional protection of those workers. Her report [text] indicated that, "journalists and media workers active on human rights issues were subject to killings, attacks, disappearance, abduction, torture and ill-treatment." In February, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) [advocacy website] released its annual Attacks on the Press report [text], expressing concern about increased censorship of journalists worldwide [JURIST report] in 2011, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa. Last May, journalism rights group Reporters without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] its annual list of predators of press freedom [materials; press release], which included the heads of state of several countries in the Middle East and North Africa. In April 2011, the US Department of State (DOS) [official website] released its 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials]. The reports cited many of the same leaders and organizations [JURIST report] as the RSF for violating freedom of the press. RSF's 2010 report [JURIST report] also listed many of the same offenders.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Monday awarded [opinion, PDF] victims' families over $300 million dollars in damages from the governments of Syria and Iran for their roles in an April 2006 terrorist attack in Israel. The lawsuit was filed by the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center [advocacy website] on behalf of plaintiffs who were injured or lost family members in a suicide bombing attack at the Rosh Ha'ir restaurant in Tel Aviv, Israel. The plaintiffs alleged that the governments of Syria and Iran offered crucial aid to the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the terrorist group that carried out the attack. In its decision, the court found that the defendants' connection with the PIJ was significant:

The evidence shows that defendants completely lacked any semblance of remorse for this deadly attack and in fact, encouraged and supported this and similar attacks. When a state chooses to use terror as a policy tool—as Iran and Syria continue to do—that state forfeits its sovereign immunity and deserves unadorned condemnation.

Defendants previously attempted to have the case dismissed for sovereign immunity, but their motion was denied. In a press release [text] the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center noted that this was the group's first successful suit against Syria.

Iran has faced similar lawsuits in the past. In May 2011, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted $300 million in punitive damages [JURIST report] in each of two cases against Iran for deaths resulting from suicide bombings by Iranian-backed terrorist groups. In February 2010, 85 victims of rocket attacks in Israel filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in DC District Court seeking damages from Iran and Iran's central bank for injuries suffered in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. In 2009, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the brother of dissident Cyrus Elahi, assassinated in Paris in 1990, cannot collect on a default judgment he holds against Iran by attaching a $2.8 million judgment obtained by the Iranian Ministry of Defense against California-based Cubic Defense Systems [corporate website]. Dariush Elahi was awarded $11.7 million in compensatory and $300 million in punitive damages after Iran refused to respond to his 2000 lawsuit brought in a Washington federal court, alleging that the Iranian government was responsible for his brother's death.

[JURIST] Mali is facing its worst human rights crisis [press release] since it gained independence in 1960, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy report] reported Wednesday. In a report [text, PDF], "Mali: Five months of crisis, armed rebellion and military coup," AI claims that hundreds of thousands of citizens have been displaced while dozens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, extrajudicial executions or sexual violence. After a three-week research mission to the country, AI concluded that all parties to the conflict are committing rights violations:

Amnesty International calls upon all parties in this conflict to respect international humanitarian law and, in particular, asks them not to attack civilians, nor people who have laid down their arms or have been taken out of action. The organization calls upon Malian authorities to put an end, without delay, to the harassment of those who campaign peacefully for the return to the rule of law.

AI also called for an end to sexual violence and the use of child soldiers.

Last month Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a similar report claiming that all sides to the conflict are committing war crimes [JURIST report]. Earlier in April the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] said they are monitoring the situation [JURIST report] for potential crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction. They noted that Mali has ratified the Rome Statute [text], which gives the ICC jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity that may have occurred since fighting began in January. The turmoil began when Taureg rebels attacked Malian soldiers [Al Jazeera report]. Many in the international community have expressed concern over the situation, including the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [JURIST reports]. All of this has come after Malian soldiers took control of the government [JURIST report] and suspended the constitution in March.

[JURIST] Mass arrests and incommunicado detentions persist at Camp Honor, a prison in Iraq's capital Baghdad that the Iraqi government promised to close [JURIST report] last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website], reported [text] Tuesday. According to HRW, the Iraqi government is reportedly holding hundreds of detainees incommunicado for months at a time at Camp Honor, as well as two unnamed facilities in the Green Zone. Those being held at these facilities were reportedly rounded up by security troops who encircled neighborhoods and went door-to-door with a list of names of people to detain. Deputy Middle East Director Joe Stork said:

Iraqi security forces are grabbing people outside of the law, without trial or known charges, and hiding them away in incommunicado sites. The Iraqi government should immediately reveal the names and locations of all detainees, promptly free those not charged with crimes, and bring those facing charges before an independent judicial authority.

In March 2011 Iraq's Justice Ministry spokesperson Haidar al-Saad announced that Camp Honor's prison population would be transferred to various other Iraqi prisons, after Amnesty International and HRW [JURIST reports] released reports that exposed rampant human rights violations at this facility, including torture.

Since the beginning of the Iraq War [JURIST backgrounder], Iraq has consistently come under fire for alleged poor conditions and security shortcomings in its prisons. This past March more than 20 Iraqi police officers were arrested and faced interrogation following the escape of 19 detainees [JURIST report] from a temporary prison in Iraq. The group of escapees, who were being held at the al-Tasfirat prison in the city of Kirkuk, included alleged al-Qaeda leaders [Al Jazeera report] and two men who had been sentenced to death. In September 2010, AI reported that the Iraqi government was unlawfully detaining and torturing [JURIST report] thousands of detainees. In June 2010, UN Special Representative to Iraq Ad Melkert urged the Iraqi government [JURIST report] to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on Tuesday denied petitions [opinion, PDF; press release] by book publishers and Apple [corporate website] to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that companies are illegally conspiring to fix electronic book (e-book) prices. The lawsuit was originally filed [JURIST report] in August. The complaint alleges that Apple and five major book publishing companies, including HarperCollins, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster, conspired to increase e-book prices in an effort to compete with e-books and the economically-priced Kindle [product page] sold by Amazon [corporate website]. By denying the companies' motion to dismiss, Judge Denise Cote allowed the class action lawsuit to continue.

Last month the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a similar complaint [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing Apple and other major publishers of colluding to illegally fix e-book prices. The DOJ investigation of the defendants' conduct revealed conversations between company executives in which they agreed to proceed under the guise of a joint venture in order to raise prices. The lawsuit claims that the defendants' conduct constitutes violations of the Sherman Act [text], and the DOJ is requesting declaratory and injunctive relief.

[JURIST] UN experts and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) [official website] on Monday urged [press release] an end to the threats and killings of human rights advocates and journalists in Mexico. The UN and IACHR called on the Mexican government to implement the "Law for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists" in order to avoid the imminent threats faced by these two groups in Mexico. Both chambers of Congress have already approved this bill in hopes of preventing future killings. The rights experts further contended that implementing this bill will assist the country in fighting crime. A spokesperson for the IACHR said:

safeguarding journalists and human rights defenders is not only compatible with the fight against crime, it is an essential element of this struggle. The Mexican authorities should take immediate measures to protect those journalists and human rights defenders that are being threatened, as well as to make definitive advances in the struggle against impunity for the crimes that have been committed against them.

Right now human rights defenders and journalists face killings, threats, attacks, harassment and stigmatization in Mexican society.

Earlier this month, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [official website] Irena Bokova urged [JURIST report] Mexican authorities to do everything in their power to solve the murders of three Mexican journalists discovered in Veracruz. In March, the Mexican Senate unanimously passed [JURIST report] a bill making it a federal crime to attack journalists. Passage of this law came days after UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya released a report [JURIST report] of threats faced by human rights journalists and called for extra protection of them.

[JURIST] Kansas Governor Sam Brownback [official website] has signed a bill [SB 62 materials] allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy, his office announced [press release] Monday. Critics of the legislation claim that it will allow pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraception [Kansas City Star report], but supporters claim that the bill was aimed at the abortion drug RU-486 and is only a narrow amendment to a 1969 Kansas law which says that no one should be required to participate in performing an abortion procedure. Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota—have laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives, and three others—Florida, Maine and Tennessee—have refusal measures that do not specifically mention pharmacists. The law will take effect in July.

Kansas has been at the forefront of the abortion debate, passing several piece of recent legislation restricting access to the procedure. Last year, Brownback signed [JURIST report] the Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights Act [HB 2035 materials], which requires unemancipated minors to obtain notarized parental signatures before an abortion may be performed, and the "fetal pain bill" [HB 2218 materials], which restricts abortions beyond 22 weeks of pregnancy based on the belief that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation. He has also signed bills banning insurance coverage [HB 2075 materials] for abortions and requiring new licensing criteria [SB 36 materials] for abortion clinics. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit challenging the insurance law last August, but a federal judge refused to block it [JURIST reports]. Last July a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the licensing requirements [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee [official website] on Monday signed an executive order [text, PDF] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages [JURIST backgrounder] performed out-of-state. Rhode Island law currently allows civil unions [JURIST report] for same-sex couples, but the law was silent on whether same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions should be recognized. In 2007, the attorney general issued an opinion in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage, but it was not legally binding and later that year the Rhode Island Supreme court refused to grant a divorce [JURIST reports] to a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts. The executive order takes effect immediately and will entitle partners to benefits such as health insurance for spouses of state employees, certain tax exemptions and being able to list both parents' names on a child's birth certificate.

Same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue throughout the US. US President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage last week just one day after voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban it [JURIST report]. In March Maryland became the eighth US state to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire [JURIST reports]. Same-sex marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] denied certiorari [order list, PDF] on Monday in Igartua v. United States, a case challenging Puerto Ricans' inability to vote in US presidential elections. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in November 2010 that Puerto Ricans could not vote because Puerto Rico is not a state. The court pointed out that the Constitution explicitly distinguishes between states and territories and only state citizens received congressional representation. Supporters of Puerto Ricans' right to vote argued that Puerto Rico was functionally equivalent to a state, thus it should be permitted to elect congressional representatives. However, the court found that there is a difference between functional equivalency and actual equivalency and also that no prior case law had accepted the "functional equivalent" argument. Supporters also argued that because Puerto Ricans had been granted citizenship, they therefore had the right to vote because voting is fundamental to citizenship. However, the court stated that the Constitution explicitly grants the right to vote to residents of the states, not citizens. Finally, supporters argued that international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text], requires all citizens to have the right to vote, but the court ruled that US policies are not inconsistent with international law and that international law could not override the Constitution. The US Department of Justice [official website] opposed [opposition brief] the grant of certiorari.

The governor of Puerto Rico approved a referendum [JURIST report] in December to decide whether the territory should maintain its current status or become a state. The referendum is to be held in November and any change in status would need to be approved by the US Congress. The Puerto Rican House of Representatives voted to pass the legislation [JURIST report] to permit the referendum earlier that month. The US House of Representatives approved a bill to establish the referendum [JURIST report] in April 2010, but it was never approved by the Senate. In 2007, the UN Special Committee on Decolonization [official website] called on the US [press release] to quickly resolve the island's political status and release political prisoners. Puerto Ricans last voted on the status of the island in 1998 [results], with the "None of the Above" option winning 50.3 percent, statehood garnering 46.5 percent of the vote and independence only 2.5 percent. The island was established as a US commonwealth in 1952 after Congress adopted the Puerto Rican Constitution. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, and the island has been under US control since 1898. Former JURIST Managing Editor Dwyer Arce recently argued that, as US citizens, Puerto Ricans should be entitled to vote [JURIST op-ed] in US presidential elections.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] partially on Monday reversed [opinion, PDF] the district court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction for Apple [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] against Samsung [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] for Samsung's "Galaxy" line of products. The appeals court agreed with the district court in denying a temporary injunction on three of the four appeals but remanded the case for further consideration of US Patent No. D504,899 [text]. The district court had held that the patent was obvious in light of certain prior art references, but the appeals court ruled that the district court improperly considered "the 'general concept' of a tablet" rather than "the distinctive 'visual appearances' of the reference and the claimed design." The district court had essentially considered Apple's patent to be invalid at too abstract a level, rather than comparing specific design components between Apple's patent and the prior art reference. Since the district court improperly determined that the D504,899 patent was likely invalid, it failed to consider the balance of hardships between Samsung and Apple if the injunction were to be granted and the public interest involved. The appeals court declined to rule on either issue however because "[i]t is normally not appropriate for this court to make such highly factual inquiries for the first time on appeal" and so it remanded the case back to the district court.

Apple's request for a temporary injunction was denied by the district court [JURIST report] in December. Apple brought its suit [JURIST report] against Samsung Electronics in April of last year, alleging that Samsung copied its iPhone and iPad technology in making its "Galaxy" products. It alleged 10 patent infringements, two trademark violations and two trade dress violations. It also accused Samsung of unfair business practices and unjust enrichment. Last month a German court dismissed a case [JURIST report] in which Apple and Samsung were both accusing each other of patent infringements. Apple also filed a complaint [JURIST report] against Samsung in July with the US International Trade Commission, a week after Samsung filed a similar complaint [JURIST report]. Apple also filed suit against Samsung in a South Korea court [JURIST report] in June.

[JURIST] International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced Monday that his office will seek arrest warrants [press release] for two rebel leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The office filed an arrest warrant application [UN News Centre report] for Sylvestre Mudacumura [ICC fact sheet, PDF], a foreign militia leader in the DRC, and sought a warrant establishing additional charges against General Bosco Ntaganda [JURIST news archive], a general in DRC's national army who has been previously indicted [case materials] by the ICC on other charges. Ocampo stressed that it was important to address the actions of the two leaders in court rather than in a confrontation, noting that "open confrontations in the past have merely led to the killing of civilians." The ICC has called for the immediate arrest of both individuals.

Last month Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] Congo President Joseph Kabila to immediately arrest Ntaganda and deliver him to the ICC to face charges of enlisting children and using them in hostile activities. Although an arrest warrant [text] was issued by the ICC in 2006 and made public [JURIST report] in 2008, Kabila suggested in a public statement earlier this month that he was considering arresting Ntaganda. Although HRW acknowledges that this suggestion is a significant step and shows a positive change in the government's policies, HRW Senior Africa Researcher Anneke Van Woudenberg said the president needs to act on his statements immediately and deliver Ntaganda to The Hague for trial. Ntaganda became a general of the Congolese army after promising to integrate the rebel forces into the Congolese troops. As a result, the government has previously refused to execute the ICC arrest warrant against him, claiming that his presence is needed in order to maintain peace among the troops.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled 5-4 [opinion, PDF] Monday in Hall v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that family farmers filing bankruptcy under Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code [text] cannot discharge a capital gains tax incurred by a post-petition sale of a farm, as the profit of that sale is not considered part of the estate. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, declared that a taxes incurred by a post-petition sale of the farm to aid the estate are incurred by the individuals who sold the farm, not the estate itself:

Chapter 12 estates are not taxable entities. Petitioners, not the estate itself, are required to file the tax return and are liable for the taxes resulting from their postpetition farm sale. The postpetition federal income tax liability is not "incurred by the estate" and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan.

Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissent, arguing that a recent amending of the code [11 USC §§ 1222(a)(2)(A)] to Chapter 12 allows for the downgrade of capital gains taxes to unsecured creditors within the plan. The majority suggested that if this was the congressional intent, they are welcome to amend the code further to allow for that.

The court affirmed the ruling [opinion text] of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in June and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in November.

[JURIST] A judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County on Friday ruled [docket materials] that an Oklahoma law [HB 1970 text] restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution [text]. The law required doctors prescribing abortion drugs to meet stricter requirements, including administering the drug on location in the medical facility, scheduling mandatory follow-up appointments, explaining drug labels to patients and reporting possible negative drug reactions to the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice (OCRJ) [advocacy websites] filed suit challenging the law in October, arguing that placing restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs violates the equal protection clause of the Oklahoma Constitution. In a statement [text] on its website, the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrated the court's decision:

This decision adds to a growing list of state and federal courts that have reaffirmed in no uncertain terms that reproductive rights are fundamental constitutional rights that must be afforded the strongest possible legal protection. The court has made it clear this law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights.

The law was originally scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2011, but was temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October. The Attorney General's office has indicated they will appeal [AP report] this decision.

Oklahoma has passed several restrictive abortion laws in recent years. In April 2011, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin [official profile] signed into law [JURIST report] a bill [HB 1888 materials] prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The law allows abortions past the 20-week mark only in certain extenuating circumstances where the mother faces death or serious injury. A doctor who performs an abortion in violation of the time limit would be subject to criminal prosecution for a felony, but the woman undergoing the procedure would not face a penalty. Last year, an Oklahoma state judge extended a temporary injunction [JURIST report] blocking enforcement of a law [HB 2780 text, RTF] that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus. In May 2010, the Oklahoma Senate [official website] voted to override the veto of a bill [HB 3284 text, RTF] that would require women seeking an abortion to complete a questionnaire, answering questions such as marital status, reasons for seeking the abortion, and whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

[JURIST] The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh (ICTB) [Facebook page] on Sunday indicted a former opposition leader for alleged human rights atrocities committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] against Pakistan. Ghulam Azam, 89, is the former head of the Jamaat-e-Islami party (JI) [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. He opposed the independence of Bangladesh and reportedly aided the Pakistani Army during the war. Azam stands accused of crimes against humanity, genocide, murder, rape, arson and other international crimes carried out during the liberation conflict, in which Azam allegedly created and led violent pro-Pakistan militias. Azam is the third suspect and highest profile opposition figure to have been charged since the ICTB was established by Bangladesh in 2010. He claims that the charges against him are politically motivated. The trial is set to begin on June 5.

The ICTB ordered Azam's arrest [JURIST report] in January. Bangladeshi officials established the tribunal [JURIST report] in March 2010 to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the Liberation War, during which officials estimate that Pakistani soldiers and local militia participated in more than three million killings and 200,000 rapes. The ICTB includes three high court judges and six investigators retired from civilian, law enforcement and military careers. In November the ICTB began its first trial [JURIST report] in the case against Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a former member of Parliament in the National Assembly of Bangladesh [official website, in Bengali] and one of the former leaders of JI. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] last year sent a letter to the Bangladesh government praising its efforts through the ICTB to prosecute war crimes, but urged the government to ensure that the trials are carried out in accordance with international human rights expectations [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Ugandan military forces Saturday captured one of the highest leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) [BBC backgrounder], the rebel militia group headed by alleged Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. The Uganda People's Defence Force (UPDF) ambushed and captured [Al Jazeera report] Major General Caesar Achellam along the banks of the River Mbou in Central African Republic (CAR). Achellam is said to be a top rebel military strategist [BBC News report] and close ally of Kony. Achellam has been fighting in the jungles of Africa for almost 30 years. He was taken into custody during a return trip from the Democratic Republic of Congo following a skirmish between about 30 rebels and the UPDF, who had been on Achellam's trail for a month before conducting the ambush. Ugandan officials cite the capture of the major general as significant progress against the LRA, labeling Achellam a "big fish" and expressing hope that his arrest will prompt other LRA fighters to abandon the fight and leave the rebel group. Achellam was reportedly captured with an AK-47, eight rounds of ammunition, a wife and young daughter and an aide.

Since the recent campaign by Invisible Children [advocacy website] to arrest Kony became popular, the international community has shown an increased commitment to his capture. In March International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] expressed his support [JURIST report] for the Invisible Children campaign. Kony is wanted by the ICC for 12 counts of crimes against humanity and 21 war crimes [ICC arrest warrant, PDF], including murder, rape, mutilation and the forced enlistment of child soldiers. Also in March the US House of Representatives proposed legislation [JURIST report] to support and protect Uganda through increased military presence and support in expanding its telecommunications system. In 2009 the ICC said that it was still looking for Kony [JURIST report]. Kony has denied the allegations [JURIST report] against him. Despite ICC calls for global cooperation [JURIST report] to execute the arrest warrant, Kony has remained at large.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] on Friday remarked on her visit [press release] to South Sudan, praising the country's development and calling on the new nation to commit to a human rights infrastructure of laws, institutions and practices. Pillay met with top government officials, civil society organizations and other UN divisions working in the country, offering the continued support of her office and urging South Sudan's speedy ratification of all the main international human rights treaties. Pillay advocated that the treaties build on the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text] and would set legal standards of human rights in South Sudan, to be reflected by the new country's national laws:

Once sound national laws that abide by international treaty standards have been adopted, the national and local authorities, security services, NGOs and other members of civil society, the judiciary and the media, have a clear legal framework to guide them. Rule of law, based on a good human rights system, is fundamental to a properly functioning democracy, and I have been encouraged by the acceptance of that fact by the country's leadership.

Specific areas of concern for Pillay include due process and state detention procedures, impunity among security forces that have lead to torture and beatings of civilians, discrimination and tyranny against women and minority groups, a moratorium on capital punishment and the importance of maintaining freedom of expression, particularly for a free press and for human rights defenders. Pillay stated that South Sudan's Constitutional Bill of Rights provides a good foundation, and that the South Sudanese with whom she met during her visit imparted to her their desire to to have human rights reflected in their daily lives.

The Republic of South Sudan was recognized as an independent country [JURIST report] in July 2011, making it the world's 193rd nation. In February 2011, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who campaigned against secession, issued a formal decree [JURIST report] accepting the result of the referendum. However, tensions between the newly independent country and Sudan remain high, and late last month al-Bashir declared a state of emergency [JURIST report] in the South Sudan border areas, imposing a trade embargo on South Sudan and granting authorities in the region wider latitude to arrest and detain than is normally afforded by Sudan's constitution. The UN has been closely monitoring the violence and providing humanitarian relief [UN News Centre report] to victims of attacks in South Sudan but has called on the government to take control of the situation. In November 2011, Pillay called for an investigation of an aerial bombing of a refugee camp in South Sudan [JURIST report] by an Antonov plane often used by northern Sudan. In June 2011, a UN official denounced continued human rights abuses [JURIST report] against civilians in the region. The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs [official website] and Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos [official profile] said that the UN knows of more than 70,000 people who have been displaced by the conflict, many of whom are subject to violence and targeting due to their ethnic heritage.

[JURIST] The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website] should acknowledge civilian casualties from air strikes in Libya and investigate possible unlawful attacks [press release], Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Monday. In a 76-page report [text, PDF], "Unacknowledged Deaths: Civilian Casualties in NATO's Air Campaign in Libya," HRW examined eight NATO air strikes which resulted in 72 civilian deaths, claiming that "the absence of a clear military target at seven of the eight sites Human Rights Watch visited raises concerns of possible laws-of-war violations that should be investigated." HRW urged NATO to:

Conduct transparent and impartial investigations into credible allegations of laws-of-war violations during NATO's air war in Libya [and] Make public the findings and include recommendations for disciplinary measures or criminal prosecutions where violations are found.

HRW also urged cooperation from Libya's ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website, in Arabic].

Allegations of war crimes and human rights violations resulting from the Libya conflict [JURIST backgrounder] have been widespread. In March Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] issued a similar report claiming that NATO failed to investigate [JURIST report] the Libyan civilians killed by air strikes which assisted in the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive]. In February AI released a report accusing the NTC of allowing the abuse and torture [JURIST report] of Gaddafi supporters by unofficial militias. In January AI reported the recent deaths of several Libyan detainees who were apparently tortured while in custody [JURIST report]. The deaths came amid allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees accused of being pro-Gaddafi loyalists and fighters during the Libyan conflict last year. In October of last year AI alleged that Libyan forces arrested nearly 2,500 people who face ongoing torture and detainment [JURIST report] without formal charges. In September the NTC vowed to investigate allegations of human rights abuses after AI published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate these allegations.

[JURIST] Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court on Saturday overturned the ruling of a lower court that would have postponed the upcoming presidential elections. Last Wednesday, a provincial court in the town of Benha ruled to suspend the elections following alleged administrative errors. The Supreme Administrative Court's decision to overturn clears the way for elections to go forward as scheduled on May 23-24. The court also declared that the Egyptian Constitutional Court [official website, Arabic] can review the legitimacy of a law that was approved by the ruling army [JURIST reports] which banned candidates who had achieved the rank of party leader or higher during the regime of former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile; JURIST news archive]. The ruling allows Ahmed Shafiq, the man who was briefly Mubarak's prime minister at the end of his regime, the ability to remain in the race until that court rules.

Egypt has been in the process of restructuring its government since protests led to the resignation of Mubarak [JURIST report] last year. Last month, an Egyptian court ordered the suspension of a constitutional panel [JURIST report], which consisted of about 100 people charged with writing the country's new constitution because Egyptian lawyers alleged its members were not chosen constitutionally. Egypt is also in the process of trying Mubarak for assisting in the killing of protestors last year. His trial ended in February, and a judge has set the verdict date [JURIST reports] for June 2.

[JURIST] The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Friday implored the Moldovan government [official website] to adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law [statement]. The proposed law, in development since 2008, is seen as a large step forward for religious minorities, the Roma population and LGBT rights in the nation. OHCHR spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani, noted that:

One of the most contentious provisions of the law is that it will outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Given the hostility facing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in Moldova, including hate speech by politicians and public officials, it is imperative that this provision remain in the law. As the High Commissioner has repeatedly stressed, acts of discrimination and violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people are violations of international human rights law and must be outlawed.

The Moldovan parliament is currently studying and debating the law.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile], has been vocal in her support [JURIST report] of this law's implementation since her visit to the Eastern European nation last November. Moldova has taken several steps in recent years to become a more democratic nation. Last year the country joined the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] after becoming the 114th signatory to the Rome Statute [JURIST report] in October 2010. During her visit last year, Pillay observed that the "country is clearly on the road to strengthening its democracy, and aims at a number of ambitious reforms" despite the current lack of human rights enforcement for certain segments of the population.

[JURIST] The Sri Lanka Police [official website] on Sunday released the names of thousands of people being held under that country's anti-terror laws. The release [AFP report] comes three years after the end of the country's 26-year civil war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive]. The announcement is the first release of this type of information by the Sri Lankan government. This information release is likely in response to continued calls from the international community to address human rights concerns in the country. In March the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] urged [JURIST report] the government of Sri Lanka to adequately investigate alleged war crimes that occurred during the civil war.

The Sri Lankan government has faced various allegations of human rights violations and war crimes by civil rights organizations and the UN since the end of its civil war in 2009. In November the Sri Lankan government was subjected to criticism for its failure to investigate [JURIST report] issues of torture for past human rights violations and to enforce laws against continued torture and ill-treatment by government officials against civilians. In April 2011 a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] committed during the country's war with the LTTE, warranting further investigation. In June 2010 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called for an international inquiry [JURIST report] into the conduct of the Sri Lankan government during its civil war.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Chile [official website, in Spanish] on Friday issued a ruling preventing the construction of a new hydroelectric dam in Patagonia. The dam was one of three hydroelectric plants proposed by Energia Austral [project website], a private joint-venture between Xstrata Copper and Origin Energy Limited, to supply power to nearby communities and copper mines. The court found [Reuters report] that the project failed to file a required land study despite the project's proposed construction in a legally protected area. The environmental advocacy group Chile Sustentable [advocacy website, in Spanish] welcomed the decision, and hailed it [press release, in Spanish] as "a tremendous achievement for the citizens."

The decision to allow the construction of dams in Patagonia has been a controversial one. In April the Supreme Court of Chile ruled [JURIST report] that a hydroelectric dam by HidroAysen [project website, in Spanish], a private Chilean venture, in Patagonia did not violate the constitutional rights of the environmental groups opposing the project. In June 2011 a Chilean appeals court ordered the temporary suspension [JURIST report] of the USD $10 billion HidroAysen project, approving three petitions challenging government authorization of the dam construction and granted the plaintiffs' petition for injunction. The court lifted the temporary suspension [Reuters report] in October 2011 allowing work on the project to move forward and spurring a constitutional challenge by environmentalists.

[JURIST] A 14-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled 12-2 [opinion, PDF] Friday that the earlier dismissal [JURIST report] of lawsuits against two Abu Ghraib [JURIST news archive] contractors on the grounds that they have immunity as government contractors was premature. The court sent the cases against CACI International Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. [corporate websites] back to the district court for fact-specific scrutiny to determine the validity of their immunity claims. According to the en banc decision of the appeals court, the case must be remanded because, "[t]he appellants are requesting immunity in a context that has been heretofore unexplored. These are not disputes in which facts that might be material to the ultimate issue have been conclusively identified." Prior to the decision of the appeals court, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filled an amicus brief [text, PDF] claiming that torture claims are not subject to immunity and that the case should be remanded to the district court.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit dismissed the claims [JURIST report] against CACI International Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. [opinions, PDF] September, holding that federal law protecting civilian contractors acting under the control of the US military in a combat situation preempted the plaintiffs' tort claims based in state law. US military personnel have also been accused of torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Army Spc. Charles Graner [JURIST news archive], the convicted ringleader of abuses committed at the prison, was released [JURIST report] last August for good behavior after serving more than six-and-a-half years of his 10-year sentence. Graner was convicted [JURIST report] in 2005 of conspiracy, assault, maltreating prisoners, dereliction of duty and committing indecent acts and received the longest sentence of the six others involved in the abuses. In June, the DOJ initiated a grand jury investigation [JURIST report] into the torture and death of a detainee at Abu Ghraib. Manadel Al-Jamadi was captured [JURIST report] by US Navy SEALs in 2003 and held in Abu Ghraib as a "ghost detainee," or unregistered prisoner, for his suspected involvement in the bombing of a Red Cross center in Baghdad that killed 12 people. The US military has never revealed the exact circumstances of his death, which was ruled a homicide [JURIST report]. Reports show he died while suspended by his wrists, which were handcuffed behind his back.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard arguments Friday from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] which is appealing a dismissal of a challenge over the no-fly list maintained by the Transportation Safety Association (TSA) [official website]. The lower court [opinion, PDF] dismissed the case [JURIST report] claiming that the suit would have to be filed against the TSA itself and not the FBI [official website] and its subagency, the Terrorist Screening Center. The lawyer arguing the case for the ACLU, Nusrat Choudhury claims on her blog [ACLU blog] that the government concedes the TSA "plays only a ministerial role" and that the correct agency was sued in the first case. Choudhury maintains that:

It is unconstitutional for the government to put people on secret lists and deny them the right to travel without even basic due process. Without a meaningful way for people to challenge their inclusion on the list, there's also no way to keep innocent people off it.

The ACLU is hoping the appeals court remands the case back to the district court with the jurisdictional question resolved.

In 2006, the FBI and the TSA agreed to pay the ACLU $200,000 in attorney's fees to settle a case brought by the civil rights organization in 2003 challenging the government's no-fly list [JURIST report] and requesting the disclosure of records. The documents noted that construction of the list was based on "two primary principles," but that there were "no hard and fast" rules governing decisions of who was put on the list. The Ninth Circuit ruled in 2008 that those placed on the government's "no-fly list" can challenge their inclusion on the list [JURIST report] in federal district courts. The court held that the Terrorist Screening Center, which actually maintains the list, is a subsection of the FBI and is therefore subject to review by the district courts. Also in 2008, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) [official website] issued a report [text, PDF] saying that the FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list [JURIST report], that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged.

[JURIST] Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic [official profile] on Friday addressed [UN News Centre] the recent increase in violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and the resulting human rights violations.The tension between government forces and dissident groups and militia has escalated during the recent weeks and fighting has resumed. This has detrimental effects on civilians who are forced to be displaced and are victims of human rights violations. Simonovic stressed that "restoring state authority, establishing the rule of law, protecting human rights and building accountable, democratic and professional security forces is a prerequisite for peace, stability and justice." Additionally, Andrej Mahecic, the spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [official website] announced [briefing notes] that the UNHCR has began to move Congolese refugees back to a northern province of the DRC since last Saturday. Through the voluntary repatriation program from Republic of Congo (ROC) [CIA World Factbook; JURIST news archive], the UNHCR aims at helping 49,000 refugees to return to DRC from ROC and 32,000 next year of which 85 percent are women and children.

The DRC has been constantly urged and criticized by various parties to stop the human rights violations against civilians. In March, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) [official websites] released [JURIST report] jointly as the UN Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) a report alleging that military forces in DRC committed human rights violations during the presidential elections last year. During the same month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] announced that it will seek the maximum sentence for a DRC militia leader after he was found guilty [JURIST reports] of war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15. Especially in 2011 various entities including the Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] and the MONUSCO urged DRC government to end post-election violence and all parties involved in the violence to remain calm [JURIST reports] and address any grievances through peaceful means.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Friday rejected [opinion, PDF] a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [official website] request arising out of 2010 cyber attack on Google [JURIST news archive] targeting Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [advocacy website] sought any communications between the National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] and Google concerning cybersecurity in 2010, but the NSA responded by issuing a Glomar response [DOI backgrounder], in which it neither confirms nor denies the existence of any responsive records, under Exemption 3 of FOIA and Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act (NSAA) [text]. The district court granted summary judgment for NSA. The main question the court of appeals focused on was whether the withheld material would reveal "the organization or any function" of the NSA. The court held that disclosing the NSA's relationship with Google would disclose information about the agency's organization concerning cybersecurity and information assurance. Thus, such activity would be protected under Section 6 of the NSAA. Circuit Judge Brown also expressed the concern that by allowing information between a private entity and the agency to go public, the former would be declined to work with the agency in the future hindering its mission of information assurance.

Friday's ruling is not the first time a court allowed the NSA neither to confirm nor deny the existence of requested documents under the FOIA concerning the agency's activities. In 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] held [JURIST report] that the NSA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] are not required to confirm or deny the existence of electronic surveillance records under the FOIA. The warrantless surveillance program has been criticized since its adoption during Bush administration in 2005. A former US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel [official website] lawyer defended [JURIST report] the program against a report [JURIST report] and criticism that it is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text] claiming that FISA contributed to the government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks.