The ADA has been the subject of much case law and has been amended since its adoption in 1990 [JURIST report]. In 2008 the US Congress amended the act [JURIST report] to make it easier for employees to bring a claim under the law, closing gaps that could have denied protection to employees with certain disabilities. At that time, Congress said the amendments were necessary to remedy the US Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation of the law in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams [opinion] in 2002. The Supreme Court also ruled in 2006 that states have no immunity [JURIST report] under the ADA and must comply with its standards.

Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) [CFR backgrounder] has been working toward establishment of a legitimate government since the 1991 end of the Muhammad Siad Barre [Britannica profile] dictatorship. Earlier this month, a UN expert urged Somalia to establish a new judicial system [JURIST report] that conforms to international human rights standards. In February, the TFG was criticized [JURIST report] by Human Rights Watch for failing to stop recruitment of child soldiers. Earlier that month, parties to the TFG were commended by the UN for coming to an agreement at the Garowe II Constitutional Conference [JURIST report] that set guidelines for establishment of a new parliament.

This organ trafficking scandal has been receiving more attention after Marty's report implicated [JURIST report] Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci [official profile] in the scheme. Since then, an EU prosecutor began investigating organ trafficking in Albania [JURIST report] in October 2011. In August of that year a US prosecutor began investigating Thaci's role in the scandal [JURIST report]. In February 2011 UN Special Representative to Kosovo Lamberto Zannier requested [JURIST report] that the UN Security Council [official website] open an independent investigation into alleged incidents of organ trafficking. That January, the COE also demanded that Albania and Kosovo investigate the claims [JURIST report].

For the families who lost loved ones at Srebrenica, justice has been a long time coming, but they can take consolation in the fact that those responsible for this tragedy are now being held accountable for their crimes. I applaud the outstanding work by ICE attorneys, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agents, and ERO officers in bringing a successful conclusion to this case. We will continue to work tirelessly to ensure our country does not serve as a haven for human rights violators and others who have committed heinous acts.

Earlier this month two Bosnian Serbs were sentenced to prison [JURIST report] for their roles in Srebenica massacre. The trial of former Bosnian Serb Army commander Ratko Mladic [ICTY case materials; JURIST news archive] began earlier this month but was postponed due to evidence disclosures [JURIST report]. In April, a Bosnian-Muslim woman pleaded guilty to was crimes after being extradited from the US [JURIST report]. That same month, the trial of eight Bosnian-Muslims began [JURIST report]. In February the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] sentenced Milan Tupajic to two months in prison [JURIST report] on two counts of contempt for refusing to testify against accused war criminal Radovan Karadzic.

Jevic and Djuric were indicted on genocide charges [JURIST report] in January 2010, along with fellow Bosnian Serb police officer Goran Markovic. Jevic served as Deputy Commander of the Special Police Brigade, while Mendeljev Duric and Goran Markovic served as Jahorina Training Center Squad Commanding Officers. Jevic and Djuric were arrested [JURIST report] in October 2009 after an investigation by the Special Department for War Crimes of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH [official website, in Bosnian] suggested their involvement in the Srebenica massacre.

I cannot stress enough the importance of full respect for the fundamental human rights of freedom of movement and expression, as well as peaceful association and assembly. The transitional government has a clear duty to ensure that all human rights are fully respected and protected in the country, including the right to security and safety of those who need to return to their homes. I hope that, with the establishment of a transitional government, the right of individuals to free movement will be guaranteed.

Guinea-Bissau has experienced instability, resulting in several coups, since gaining independence from Portugal in 1974. Two weeks after the coup in April, the UN Security Council [official website] called for constitutional order in Guinea-Bissau [JURIST report]. Pillay hoped to prevent another coup when she urged [JURIST report] the people of Guinea-Bissau in March to refrain from any violence during the upcoming election. The same month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] asked the government, military and civilians to maintain order [text] during the elections. In 2010, the EU discontinued [JURIST report] its EU SSR Guinea-Bissau Mission [official website] that provided assistance to the country's security forces in developing a legal framework, citing the breakdown of law and order in the country. A few months earlier, Ban called on leaders in Guinea-Bissau to respect the rule of law [JURIST report] and maintain constitutional order in the wake of another confrontation between the military and government.

The Hungarian government has now made clear that it is not serious about protecting media freedom. The changes to media laws do little to address the serious concerns expressed by the Council of Europe and in some case may make matters worse.

Hungary's media laws have come under fire recently. In December, Hungary's Constitutional Court [official website, in Hungarian] struck down [JURIST report] certain provisions of the media laws as an unconstitutional restraint on press freedom. Rights groups had urged Hungary to amend [JURIST report] the media laws. The media laws created the National Media and Communications Authority (NMHH) [official website, in Hungarian], which controls private television and radio broadcasters, newspapers and online news sites. Under the law, the government could impose costly fines on broadcasters, newspapers and news websites if their coverage is deemed unbalanced or immoral by the media authority. The Constitutional Court struck down provisions allowing the NMHH to regulate content in print and online media and limiting the rights of reporters to protect confidential sources.

The four suspects were among six individuals for which the ICC issued summons [JURIST report] last year. In October Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged the ICC to expand its investigation [JURIST report] into the post-election violence. The ICC claimed jursidction over the case despite Kenya's calls for dismissal [JURIST report]. The Kenyan government argued that they were capable of prosecuting the accused men domestically.

Overdraft fees have been the subject of copious litigation recently. In November King approved a settlement [JURIST report] in a class action suit against Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website] for excessive overdraft fees. The settlement called for BOA to pay $410 million to 13.2 million people who had BOA debit cards between 2001 and 2011. BOA was among more than two dozen US, Canadian and European lenders named as defendants in the class action lawsuit, which consolidated claims across the country in 2009. In their amended complaint [text, PDF], the plaintiffs claimed that BOA's practices were deceptive in that they did not reasonably notify customers that they had the option of opting out of the overdraft scheme and declining transactions. In November 2009, the UK Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the British government could not challenge the fairness of bank overdraft fees as a matter of law.

In a separate case, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in January seeking the release of videotapes [JURIST report] of the interrogation of a Guantanamo detainee. The CCR filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on behalf of Mohammed al-Qahtani [NYT profile; JURIST news archive], a Saudi citizen believed to be the twentieth hijacker in the 9/11 attacks [JURIST backgrounder]. The CCR claims that the FOIA compels the US government to publicly release the videotapes.

Governments across the globe have struggled to define rights for same-sex couples. Last week, the city of Buenos Aires passed a resolution [JURIST report] recognizing same-sex marriages for non-citizens. Two weeks ago, the Israeli Knesset [official website] rejected a bill [JURIST report] that would have legalized civil marriages in the country. Earlier that 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 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.

Our reports are founded on the simple truth at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Respect for human rights is not a western construct or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability everywhere. Universal human rights include the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and to seek to reform or change their governments, a central theme around the world in 2011. As President Obama has said, "History offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable, and more successful than governments that do not."

The DOS issues its yearly reports on human rights practices to Congress under a legal mandate [22 USC § 2151n] and has filed similar reports for 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 [JURIST reports] and previous years.

It was a very important meeting with President Mugabe, where he recounted to me the past history of Zimbabwe and attributed some of the current problems to the past. I commended the president for making a call that there should be no violence in future elections. I urged him to continue to make such calls. I also urged him to ensure that the future elections will be free and fair and free from violence.

The international community has scrutinized Zimbabwe's government recently. Earlier in May, a South African court ordered an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged human rights violations committed by Mugabe's government. The court order derived from legal action brought by human rights groups [JURIST report] attempting to prosecute Mugabe's government for crimes against humanity. In August the BBC reported that Zimbabwe security forces are running illegal mining camps [JURIST report] in the country's Marange area where recruited civilian workers are regularly tortured and forced into labor. According to the report, workers are subject to mauling by dogs, multiple beatings and rape. The camps, one of which allegedly has ties to a personal friend of Mugabe, were reported to have been operating for three years.

One can hardly imagine Congress, whether in approving the IAD or at any other time, empowering a state governor to veto a federal court habeas writ—designed to bring a federally indicted prisoner to federal court for trial on federal charges—because the governor opposed the federal penalty that might be imposed if a conviction followed. If we were now determining Congress' intent afresh, the improbability of such an intention would be apparent. ... Were Pleau and Governor Chafee to prevail, Pleau could be permanently immune from federal prosecution, and the use of the efficient detainer system badly compromised. He is currently serving an 18-year term in Rhode Island prison and, if the writ were denied, might agree to a state sentence of life in Rhode Island for the robbery and murder. Even if Pleau served only his current 18-year term, needed witnesses for federal prosecution could be unavailable two decades from now. Instead of a place of confinement, the state prison would become a refuge against federal charges.

Pleau was sentenced to 18 years in prison for violating his probation after being accused of killing a gas station attendant in the process of a robbery. No state charges were filed, as Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin [official website] decided that the US Attorney's Office had jurisdiction for the crime beyond the probation violation. However, should federal proceedings not occur, Pleau has agreed to plead guilty and accept a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Rhode Island was one of the first states to abolish the death penalty, abolishing it in 1852. In April its New England neighbor Connecticut repealed the death penalty [JURIST report]. JURIST Guest Columnist Ben Jones, Executive Director for the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty [advocacy website], argued that Connecticut's repeal of the death penalty is the beginning of a national trend of states moving away from capital punishment [JURIST comment].

Tension between Bahrain's government and protesters has escalated recently. Three weeks ago, Bahraini authorities arrested [JURIST report] prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab. Earlier in May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called for the immediate release [JURIST report] of the leader's of last year's anti-government protests, including Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. In April, HRW issued a report claiming that Bahraini police were abusing detained protesters [JURIST report]. Earlier in April, Amnesty International [advocacy website] declared that Bahrain's government committed human rights violations [JURIST report] against anti-government protesters.

A simple example illustrates the point. A jury enters the jury room, having just been given these instructions. The foreperson decides that it would make sense to determine the extent of the jurors' agreement before discussions begin. Accordingly, she conducts a vote on capital murder, and everyone votes against guilt. She does the same for first-degree murder, and again, everyone votes against guilt. She then calls for a vote on manslaughter, and there is disagreement. Only then do the jurors engage in a discussion about the circumstances of the crime. While considering the arguments of the other jurors on how the death was caused, one of the jurors starts rethinking his own stance on a greater offense. After reflecting on the evidence, he comes to believe that the defendant did knowingly cause the death—satisfying the definition of first-degree murder. At that point, nothing in the instructions prohibits the jury from doing what juries often do: revisit a prior vote. "The very object of the jury system." after all, "is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves." A single juror's change of mind is all it takes to require the jury to reconsider a greater offense.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. She argued that a clear resolution on the two more major charges was reached, especially considering Arkansas' instructions that decisions must be made in order of the charges' severity. "In ascertaining whether an acquittal has occurred, 'form is not to be exalted over substance.' Rather, we ask whether the factfinder has made 'a substantive determination that the prosecution has failed to carry its burden.' Jurisdictions have different procedures respecting the announcement of verdicts and the entry of judgments, but that diversity has no constitutional significance. ... In this context, the forewoman's announcement in open court that the jury was 'unanimous against' conviction on capital and first-degree murder was an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. Per Arkansas law, the jury's determination of reasonable doubt as to those offenses was an acquittal 'in essence.'" The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in October and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in January.

Nor is there any merit to petitioners' related contention that §2607(b) should not be given its natural meaning because doing so leads to the allegedly absurd result of permitting a provider to charge and keep the entirety of a $1,000 unearned fee, while imposing liability if the provider shares even a nickel of a $10 charge with someone else. That result does not strike us as particularly anomalous. Congress may well have concluded that existing remedies, such as state-law fraud actions, were sufficient to deal with the problem of entirely fictitious fees, whereas legislative action was required to deal with the problems posed by kickbacks and fee splitting. In any event, petitioners' reading of the statute leads to an "absurdity" of its own: Because §2607(b) manifestly cannot be understood to prohibit unreasonably high fees, a service provider could avoid liability by providing just a dollar's worth of services in exchange for the $1,000 fee. Acknowledging that §2607(b)'s coverage is limited to fee-splitting transactions at least has the virtue of making it a coherent response to that particular problem, rather than an incoherent response to the broader problem of unreasonably high fees.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in October and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in February. Quicken Loans [corporate website], the prevailing party in the case, praised [press release] the decision: "Quicken Loans has won this case at every step and in every court—the U.S. District Court in New Orleans and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—and now before the US Supreme Court. Although we always believed that we were on the right side of the law, it is especially gratifying to have the affirmation of the highest court in the country."

Failed leadership has gone global in the last year, with politicians responding to protests with brutality or indifference. Governments must show legitimate leadership and reject injustice by protecting the powerless and restraining the powerful. It is time to put people before corporations and rights before profits.

AI regularly reports on human rights violations around the world. Earlier this month, AI urged [press release] the Sudanese government to stop its alleged press censorship [JURIST report]. In January, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released [press release] its annual World Report [materials], which also provides a comprehensive catalog of the world's major human rights violations [JURIST report] and gives HRW's outlook on trends and remedies to ongoing situations.

In addition to drafting a new constitution, the CA has recently struggled to resolve other human rights issues in Nepal. In April UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-wha Kang [official profile] spoke [JURIST report] to the CA about several human rights issues in the country, including a reluctance to prosecute war crimes and insufficient progress increasing women's rights [texts, PDF]. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Human Rights Watch [JURIST reports] have both previously appealed to the government of Nepal [BBC backgrounder] to investigate human rights violations allegedly committed during the civil war. The decade-long Maoist guerrilla insurgency that left more than 13,000 people dead ended [JURIST report] in late 2006 when the Napalese government signed a peace agreement that established the CA. In November the CA announced it would finish drafting a new constitution [JURIST report] within 18 months. Last May the CA voted to abolish the monarchy [JURIST report], giving King Gyanendera 15 days to abandon his royal palace, which cleared the way for Maoists to serve in government. As part of the peace accord, the CA was elected [JURIST report] in April 2008, an organization dominated by members of the Communist Party of Nepal- Maoists (CPN-M) [party website].

Last month UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed concern [JURIST report] about threats to rule of law [press release] in Papua New Guinea. Pillay's concerns stemmed from actions taken by the government that she believed breach international human rights standards and adversely affect the judiciary and its ability to act independently. Pillay said the actions of both the legislature and the executive have curtailed the power of the judiciary and it can no longer function independently. In March, the Parliament passed a bill to refer judges to a system for dealing with misconduct. When the Supreme Court held that such a system was unconstitutional the legislature passed another law creating criminal sanctions [amendment text] against anyone who would not comply with the first law.

Ben Ali left office and the country in January 2011, seeking exile in Saudi Arabia during the protests. Just under one year later the military tribunal convened and began trying Ali for his alleged orders to shoot protesters, for which the prosecutor has now sought the death penalty. Ben Ali and his wife were tried and convicted [JURIST reports] in absentia on numerous charges related to corruption, including theft and unlawful possession of money and jewelry, and were sentenced to 35 years in prison and fined US$65.6 million. Justice Minister Lazhar Karoui Chebbi [profile, in French] announced the issuance of an arrest warrant for Ben Ali in January 2011, but the country has not received a response to its requests to extradite [JURIST reports] the former leader from Saudi Arabia.

MasterCard balances the interests of both consumers and retailers, so that each party pays its fair share of the costs for the benefits it receives. Today's ruling, if it stands, would upset that sharing and tip the balance decidedly against consumers. It would also threaten the continued delivery of the most advanced electronic payment technologies in Europe which, in turn, are essential to facilitating business and driving economic growth.

In 2010 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a civil antitrust lawsuit [JURIST report] against MasterCard, Visa and American Express [corporate websites]. The lawsuit challenged rules utilized by the companies that prevented merchants from providing discounts and rewards for using credit cards with lower merchant fees. The DOJ contended that these rules unfairly inflate costs for both consumers and merchants. Visa and MasterCard agreed to a settlement that required the companies to allow merchants using their cards to express a preference for types of payments accepted, to offer discounts to consumers for using a particular card or type of payment and to provide consumers with information regarding the costs incurred by the merchant when a particular type of credit card is used. In 2008 Visa and Mastercard settled an antitrust suit [JURIST report] with Discover Financial Services [corporate website] for $2.75 billion. The settlement was the result of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Discover after a DOJ suit [opinion] determined Visa and Mastercard were in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by prohibiting banks from using Discover's services.

Despite the human rights imperative to employ lethal force only as a last resort to protect life, state security forces continued to use lethal force against anti-government demonstrations in Idlib, Homs, Aleppo, Hama, Damascus and Dar'a and in numerous villages throughout the country. The Commission recognizes that many such protests were accompanied by armed groups, who have described their role as providing protection for the demonstrators. The resulting clashes were deadly for demonstrators, members of these armed groups and security forces alike, yet too-often civilians bore the brunt of the violence.

The international community has continued to call for end to the violence in Syria. In April, the UN Security Council [official website] approved a resolution [JURIST report] to send 300 unarmed soldiers and civilian aid to Syria to implement a peace plan. Earlier in April, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] released a report claiming the Syrian government has executed more than 100 civilians [JURIST report] and opposition fighters during recent attacks. Also in April UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] reaffirmed his call for an end to the violence and condemned attacks [JURIST report] by pro-government troops against civilians. In March the UN Human Rights Council [official website] passed a non-binding resolution [JURIST report] condemning Syrian authorities for ongoing bloodshed and violations of human rights. This official condemnation from the rights body came after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] demanded a cease-fire [JURIST report] in late February.

The ACLU has long been critical of government surveillance programs. Earlier this week the US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [JURIST report] Monday in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA [docket] to determine whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge a federal eavesdropping law. The ACLU, one of the respondents in the case, expressed hope [press release] that the Supreme Court would affirm the Second Circuit and allow the lawsuit to proceed. In September the ACLU released a report [text, PDF] claiming that the US is diminishing its "core values" with regard to various counterterrorism measures [JURIST report] put in place during the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks [JURIST news archive]. To support this contention, the report cited to US policies regarding indefinite military detention for terrorism suspects, the use of torture on terrorism suspects and enemy combatants, racial and religious profiling, and domestic surveillance and wiretapping.

A number of countries around the world have been making attempts to solve the problem of maritime piracy. Earlier this week a United Arab Emirates court sentenced 10 Somali pirates [JURIST report] to 25 years in prison. Also this week six accused Somali pirates went on trial [JURIST report] in a Paris court for taking 30 crew members hostage in 2008 on the ship Le Ponant in the Gulf of Aden. The US government in March handed over [JURIST report] 15 suspected Somali pirates it captured in January to the Republic of Seychelles for prosecution. Italy ordered its first international piracy trial in February against nine Somali pirates, while France began its first international piracy trial [JURIST reports] in November. In October the UN Security Council adopted a resolution encouraging states to criminalize and punish piracy after maritime piracy reached an all-time high [JURIST reports] last year. The UN also donated $9.3 million [JURIST report] in 2010 to fund piracy courts in Seychelles and Kenya, the only two countries that have created such courts.