Chen is an outspoken activist who was originally wanted in his rural town for exposing forced abortions and other human rights abuses. Before escaping to the US Embassy Chen was kept under house arrest after he was released from prison in 2010. Chen served four years in prison [JURIST report] for damaging property and "organizing a mob to disturb traffic." During his house arrest Chinese authorities increased surveillance of his home and family, bringing into question the authenticity of his release [press release]. Chen's family members have claimed that the activist suffers from health problems caused by mistreatment he received while in prison, including beatings and repeated food poisonings [WP report]. Chen claims that the charges were retribution for his documentation of forced sterilizations and abortions performed by Chinese officials to enforce China's one-child policy, and has been consistently detained [HRW backgrounder] by Chinese authorities since 2005.

In 2008 the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] affirmed a district court's decision [JURIST reports] to strike down the federal Child Online Protection Act (COPA) [text], which held website operators who made sexually obscene materials available to children civilly and criminally liable. That court found that COPA did not pass strict scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest in protecting children, as there were less restrictive means available. In 2004 the US Supreme Court made a decision [opinion, PDF] stating that COPA probably was a violation of the First Amendment, but remanded it back to a federal district court to make factual findings on what technology was available to parents to filter the content to which their children have access.

Amendments in substantive and procedural law, and internal regulations and instructions issued by various agencies are a welcome change ... It is difficult at this stage to assess their actual impact on the ability of citizens to enjoy and enforce their right to physical and mental integrity under all circumstances. They will require sustained effort and commitment from the highest levels of authority and a clear pledge to "zero tolerance" of torture ... If there is no recognition that there is a problem with mistreatment, whether systematic or not, mistreatment is not likely to go away.

Poor prison conditions continue to draw criticism worldwide. In October Mendez recommended that governments ban solitary confinement for juveniles and prisoners with mental disabilities [JURIST report]. In July jailed Iranian journalist Isa Saharkhiz urged UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Dr. Ahmad Shaheed to investigate prison conditions in Iran [JURIST report], alleging that the maltreatment of both political and general prisoners in Iran amounts to crimes against humanity. In California in June at least 400 inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison initiated a hunger strike [JURIST report] in protest of solitary confinement. Inmates of Pelican Bay's Security Housing Unit (SHU), a long-term isolation ward where one-third of the prison's population is held in solitary confinement, instigated of the strike. The Washington Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in January that holding death row inmates in solitary confinement indefinitely [JURIST report] is not an impermissible increase in the severity of punishment.

Megrahi's 2009 release was controversial, condemned by both US officials and the Scottish Parliament [JURIST report]. Responding to criticism of his decision to release Megrahi, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill [official website] claimed he acted in good faith, denying that there was an arrangement [Telegraph report] for Megrahi to drop his appeal in return for his release. In August the Scottish Crown defended its decision [JURIST report] to release Megrahi, prompting Scottish prosecutors to ask Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website] for any evidence, witnesses or assistance they could provide to help track down others involved in the bombing. In August 2010 Scottish Labour Party officials called for the publication of all medical evidence related to Megrahi's release [JURIST report]. Earlier in 2010 US lawmakers called for an investigation [JURIST report] into the role that oil company British Petroleum (BP) [official website] may have played in Megrahi's release.

Patent infringement cases among mobile phone distributors have been on the rise in recent years. In December the ITC ruled [JURIST report] for Apple on a patent complaint against HTC [corporate websites] for infringing its "data tapping" patents. In July the ITC ruled that HTC infringed two Apple patents [JURIST report] relating to the Android operating system. This ruling came days after Apple filed a complaint against Samsung [JURIST report] in an effort to bar importation of several of Samsung's smartphones and tablets. Apple claimed Samsung's "Galaxy" line copies its iPhone and iPad technology. This complaint came just weeks after Samsung filed a similar complaint [JURIST report] seeking to prevent Apple from importing iPads and iPhones. Samsung had claimed Apple violated five patents also related to smartphones and tablets.

Courts across the globe have struggled to define rights for same-sex couples. Earlier this week Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order [JURIST report] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. Earlier this month voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in that state. In March Israel's Ramat Gan Family Court ruled that a lesbian couple can both be recognized as mothers of a child they had together, finding that it would defy logic and common sense to deny parental rights to both women. Although same-sex couples continue to be unable to marry legally in Israel, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 2006 that the government must recognize same-sex marriages ordained abroad [JURIST report].

Gay rights continue to be a contentious issue [JURIST comment] throughout the world. In February, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for Uganda to end its discrimination of the LGBT community [JURIST report]. This comes just two months after the UN released a report [JURIST report] detailing widespread violence against LGBT individuals. That same month, Malawi decided to review [JURIST report] its anti-homosexuality laws. Last November, Russia passed a controversial law banning the "promotion" of homosexuality [JURIST report].

Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered and acted pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race. In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the People's elected representatives.

There has been significant controversy [JURIST comment] surrounding voting rights recently, especially in regards to voter ID laws that are spreading around the US. There are now 30 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the poll, including 11 states that require photo ID. The DOJ has rejected the Texas and South Carolina [JURIST reports] voter ID law. Last year Missouri's Governor vetoed a proposed photo ID law, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a law [JURIST reports] requiring one of six government-issued photo IDs. In 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down [JURIST report] a portion of Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Florida and Arizona [JURIST reports] are also currently bringing challenges to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Under the principles of the doctrine of comity applied in our State, Maryland courts will withhold recognition of a valid foreign marriage only if that marriage is "repugnant" to State public policy. This threshold, a high bar, has not been met yet; e.g., no still viable decision by this Court has deemed a valid foreign marriage to be “repugnant,” despite being void or punishable as a misdemeanor or more serious crime were it performed in Maryland. The present case will be treated no differently. A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to the applicable statutes, reported cases, and court rules of this State.

Same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue throughout the US. Earlier this week Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order [JURIST report] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. 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]. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports].

This legislation is about protecting the integrity of Mississippi's elections. ... This legislation is a direct result of the majority of Mississippians expressing their desire for a constitutional voter ID requirement in the state. We want everyone to participate in the election process, and we want that process to be fair and secure.

There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, but the issue remains controversial. Earlier this month, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's new voter ID law [JURIST reports]. Last month a Wisconsin appeals court refused to rule on an injunction [JURIST report] currently blocking that state's voter ID law. In February the Virginia Senate approved a voter ID law [JURIST report]. Last June Missouri Governor Jay Nixon [official website] vetoed [JURIST report] a law requiring persons to present photo ID at voting booth.

Al-Bashir remains an extremely controversial figure in international politics for his actions during the Darfur conflict. The Kenyan High Court ruled in November that al-Bashir must be arrested [JURIST report] if he ever returns to Kenya. The ruling was in response to his second visit [JURIST report], where Kenya joined the ranks of the other African countries that have refused to enforce the ICC arrest warrant. The ICC requested in October that the Republic of Malawi explain [JURIST report] why that country's authorities failed to arrest al-Bashir during his widely reported visit there for a trade summit. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website], in a press release on the day of al-Bashir's visit, urged Malawi to arrest the Sudanese president [JURIST report] and surrender him to the ICC for prosecution. Last June AI urged Malaysia to withdraw an invitation for al-Bashir to participate in an event there and to arrest him if he travels to the country [JURIST report]. Also in June, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo issued a statement claiming that al-Bashir has continued to commit crimes against humanity [JURIST report] in Darfur. Last May the ICC urged Djibouti to arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report].

The new information law and the creation of the truth commission have been hailed by many as positive steps forward for Brazil. The commission is authorized to investigate abuses that occurred under Brazil's military dictatorship, which reigned the country from 1964 to 1985, but its findings will not lead to any trials [Al Jazeera report] due to a military-era amnesty. During the swearing-in ceremony, Rousseff, who was herself imprisoned for three years [BBC profile] during the military dictatorship, said "Brazil deserves the truth, new generations deserve the truth, and—above all—those who lost friends and relatives and who continue to suffer as if they were dying again each day deserve the truth."

We conclude, on the record before us, that the town's prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This conclusion is supported by several considerations, including the prayer-giver selection process, the content of the prayers, and the contextual actions (and inactions) of prayer-givers and town officials. We emphasize that, in reaching this conclusion, we do not rely on any single aspect of the town’s prayer practice, but rather on the totality of the circumstances present in this case. The town's process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint. Christian clergy delivered each and every one of the prayers for the first nine years of the town's prayer practice, and nearly all of the prayers thereafter. In the town's view, the preponderance of Christian clergy was the result of a random selection process. The randomness of the process, however, was limited by the town's practice of inviting clergy almost exclusively from places of worship located within the town's borders. The town fails to recognize that its residents may hold religious beliefs that are not represented by a place of worship within the town. Such residents may be members of congregations in nearby towns or, indeed, may not be affiliated with any congregation. The town is not a community of religious institutions, but of individual residents, and, at the least, it must serve those residents without favor or disfavor to any creed or belief. In our view, whether a town's prayer-selection process constitutes an establishment of religion depends on the extent to which the selection process results in a perspective that is substantially neutral amongst creeds.

The Second Circuit also ruled [JURIST report] last year that the New York City Department of Education [official website] can enforce a rule prohibiting outside groups from using school facilities for after-school worship services. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last July upheld a ruling by a federal district court that the Forsyth County, North Carolina, Board of Commissioners violated the First Amendment by beginning its public meetings with sectarian prayer. This ruling was analyzed [JURIST comment] by JURIST Guest Columnist Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina [advocacy website], who concluded that prayer at government functions that adheres to a particular religious dogma is unacceptable because it has a coercive impact on listeners and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In April 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the National Day of Prayer (NDP) [official website], overturning an earlier lower court decision [JURIST report] that found the event in violation of the Establishment Clause by representing government-backed encouragement that Americans engage in non-secular activity.

Brazil's truth commission was established on the basis of a law that Rousseff enacted [JURIST report] in November, and it will have two years to complete its work. Despite the existence of an amnesty law, this past March Brazilian prosecutors announced plans to charge a retired colonel [JURIST report] for his actions during a military dictatorship [investigation materials, PDF, in Portuguese]. In August AI urged Brazil to repeal its amnesty law [JURIST report]. Other Latin American countries have recently taken steps to end amnesties for their military dictatorships. In March AI urged government officials in El Salvador [JURIST report] to repeal [press release] a 1993 amnesty law that prevents any investigation [JURIST report] into killings committed during the country's 12-year civil war [PBS backgrounder], including the killing of respected Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Last year, the Uruguayan Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] the country's Expiry Law, which granted amnesty to military officials accused of human rights violations during the country's 1973-1985 dictatorship. In 2005 Argentina's Supreme Court struck down similar amnesty laws [JURIST report] adopted in the 1980s to protect potential defendants, prompting the government to reopen hundreds of human rights cases.

Violations include coercion by immigration judges and deportation officers to get detainees to sign stipulated orders of removal, overburdened court dockets, delays in the removal process, failure to provide pro bono representation information, and lack of adequate language access for non-English speaking detainees.

The US government has faced criticism over the immigrant detention system. In September the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that immigrants who are imprisoned while fighting deportation cannot be held indefinitely [JURIST report] without a bail hearing and that the government must justify the need for the prolonged detention. Last year the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) [official website] released a report detailing investigations into immigrant detention centers [JURIST report]. The report expressed concern over increased use of detention by the US government, citing a doubling in detention of non-citizens by ICE. It criticized the US government for viewing detention as a necessity and not as an exception in its enforcement. The IACHR also found the average 30-day detentions troubling, arguing that it is likely to increase as backlogs of immigration cases increase. The number of immigration cases pending is expected to rise in light of the numerous state laws that have been enacted to address the issue of immigration.

This bill will ensure we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy. It is a big moment. I hope other states will follow us. The science on fracking is uncertain at best. Let the other states be the guinea pigs. Let the Green Mountain State preserve its clean water, its lakes, its rivers and its quality of life.

Fracking has been a contentious issue both in the US and abroad. In January the New Jersey Legislature passed an amendment to a bill [JURIST report] that establishes a one-year ban on fracking. Legislators re-introduced the bill this year after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed legislation last June that would have permanently banned fracking in New Jersey [JURIST report]. In October the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] announced plans to develop standards [JURIST report] for wastewater discharge from fracking. Last June New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the US government [JURIST report] for its alleged failure to study the risks of fracking. In May 2011 France's lower house approved a nationwide ban on fracking [JURIST report].

Egypt has been heavily criticized for the way it treated protesters during the Egyptian revolution. Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch [advocacy websites] released reports that protesters had been tortured and improperly detained [JURIST reports]. AI has also criticized the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) [NYT backgrounder], stating that human rights violations against protesters committed by the SCAF may be equal to those committed under Mubarak. Egyptians will elect a new leader next week.

The essence of the law must remain the same, and that is if you live or work in Alabama, you must do so legally. ... We must make sure that final revisions to the immigration law make the law more effective, help promote economic growth, ensure fairness, and provide greater clarity on the application of the law. I believe these additional revisions will help us as we accomplish those goals. A more effective, enforceable bill is a stronger bill.

In March the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit deferred ruling [JURIST report] on the constitutionality of both this law and a similar Georgia law because it wanted to see how a challenge to Arizona's immigration law is ruled on in the US Supreme Court [official website]. In December Bentley announced that he would be working to change the law [JURIST report] but maintained that he had no intention of repealing it and that the essence of the law would still be intact. Bentley's announcement came after a recommendation [JURIST report] by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange that certain provisions probably would not withstand constitutional challenges. Two provisions were temporarily blocked [JURIST report] by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October after a district court refused to grant [JURIST report] a temporary injunction: Section 28, which requires immigration status checks of public school students, and Section 10, which makes it a misdemeanor for an illegal resident not to have immigration papers.

[T]he statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces"—i.e., "foreign terrorist organizations." The vagueness of § 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the Government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.

Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011. Upon signing, he noted [statement], "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December.

The Open Society Institute of New York and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission [advocacy websites] alleged in March that US detainees were sent to a National Directorate of Security (NDS) facility in Kandahar, which was condemned [JURIST reports] in a report [text, PDF] by the UN in October for "systematically tortur[ing]" prisoners during interrogations. Afghan officials denied the torture allegations [JURIST report], saying there was no basis for the UN's findings. Afghanistan has a history of criticism for human rights abuses. In September, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] alleged that the Afghan Local Police had been committing serious human rights violations [JURIST report], including rape, murder, abduction, forced land seizures and illegal raids. Last March, the UN released a report alleging that the Afghan government's corruption and short-term security goals were intensifying the country's poverty issues [JURIST report]. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also delivered a report earlier that month saying that the government was stalling human rights progress [JURIST report] through abuse of power and violence against women.

Mladic is charged with several counts of genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive]. His lawyers requested the trial be delayed for six months. Orie did not suggest a potential date for the trial to resume.

Earlier this month, ICTY chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz told reporters that he believes Mladic is mentally and physically fit to stand trial, although an ordered a medical exam [JURIST reports] of Mladic in November has yet to be officially released. In April Mladic pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to all charges presented by the ICTY. Mladic faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, including murder, political persecution, forcible transfer and deportations, cruel treatment and the taking of peacekeepers as hostages. In February Mladic accused the tribunal of bias and sought to delay his trial [JURIST reports] once again. A three-judge panel for the ICTY accepted a request brought by prosecutors to reduce the number of crimes [JURIST report] they intend to prove against Mladic from 196 to 106 in December, in an effort to accelerate the proceedings. The ICTY prosecutor refused to seek further appeal [JURIST report] of the tribunal's refusal to split Mladic's trial into separate actions: one for his conduct during the Srebrenica massacre, where approximately 8,000 people were killed, and one for all of his other charges during the Bosnian civil war. Serbian authorities arrested Mladic after a 16-year search [JURIST report] in May of last year.

Taylor was convicted [JURIST report] last month on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity during Sierra Leone's civil war. The court unanimously found him responsible for acts of terrorism, murder, rape and sexual slavery, other inhumane acts, outrages on personal dignity, physical violence, enslavement, pillage, and the conscription and enlistment of child soldiers stemming from from a "campaign to terrorize the civilian population" of Sierra Leone [JURIST news archive]. Earlier this month, the chief prosecutor at the SCSL recommended an 80-year sentence [JURIST report] for Taylor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.