The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] last week by Governor Jan Brewer, has caused intense controversy. Earlier this week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] strongly criticized [JURIST report] Arizona's new immigration law, claiming that the measure opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report], calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime [AP report] to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

[JURIST] Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday challenging Arizona's new immigration law, which makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant and requires police to question anyone whose immigration status appears suspect. Arizona police officer Martin Escobar filed suit [complaint text] in the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website], alleging that SB 1070 [materials] is unconstitutional and could hamper police investigations. A second suit was filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC) [advocacy website], which argues that the legislation is preempted by federal law. Also Thursday, several advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] formally announced their intention to challenge [press release] the bill.

The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] last week by Governor Jan Brewer, has caused intense controversy. Earlier this week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] strongly criticized [JURIST report] Arizona's new immigration law, claiming that the measure opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report], calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime [AP report] to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

Last month, the NLD announced that it would not take part in the nation's first elections in 20 years after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected [JURIST reports] a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. Myanmar also faced a bevy of criticism during the month of March, with the UN Human Rights Council [official website] adopting a resolution [A/HRC/13/L.15 materials] condemning the country for rights violations and urging [JURIST report] the ruling junta to conduct fair and free elections. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that Myanmar's election laws do not meet international standards [JURIST report], and Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] has said [press release] "[the new law] continues the sham political process that is aimed at creating the appearance of civilian rule with a military spine."

partly restore those limits - by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures - and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads.

US President Barack Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court's holding in Citizens United, most notably [JURIST reports] in this year's State of the Union speech. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. Earlier this month, the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] held a hearing [JURIST report] on the effects of the Citizens United decision.

France, which has Europe's largest Muslim population, has also been pressing for a ban on the burqa. Last week, a spokesperson for French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French; BBC profile] said that the president is in favor of a complete public ban on the burqa and other full face veils and will be submitting a bill to parliament in May. Last month, the French Council of State advised the French government against a complete ban [JURIST report] on full Islamic veils because it risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. France already has a partial ban that prevents public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity and also prohibits veils in public schools. Also last month, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill [Star report] that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services, which garnered support from members of the Muslim Canadian Congress who argue that the law would not violate human rights [JURIST comment] and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society.

The treaty comes soon after the election [JURIST report] of President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], who took office in February. Yanukovych replaced Viktor Yushchenko [JURIST news archive], who had sought to cut ties with Russia and strengthen relationships with Western Europe. Yushchenko opposed the extension of Russia's Black Sea lease.

China's state secrets law has frequently been criticized for the breadth of action which falls under the doctrine. In November 2009, rights activist Huang Qi was sentenced to three years in prison [JURIST report] for violating the state secrets law, when he discussed how some schools collapsed after the Sichuan province earthquake [BBC backgrounder] in 2008 because of shoddy construction. China began a review of its state secrets law last June, after concerns were raised regarding Internet filtering software [JURIST reports] on computers sold in that country.

[JURIST] Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], filed suit Thursday in Myanmar's Supreme Court to stop the dissolution of her opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) [party website] under a controversial election law [JURIST report]. Suu Kyi is asking the court to annul the part of the election law that bars political prisoners [JURIST report] from participating in elections, and also to establish a parliament of lawmakers who won in the 1990 elections. The NLD also filed a similar suit. If the NLD does not re-register by May 6, it may face dissolution.

Last month, the NLD announced that it would not take part in the nation's first elections in 20 years after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected [JURIST reports] a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. Myanmar also faced a bevy of criticism during the month of March, with the UN Human Rights Council [official website] adopting a resolution [A/HRC/13/L.15 materials] condemning the country for rights violations and urging [JURIST report] the ruling junta to conduct fair and free elections. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that Myanmar's election laws do not meet international standards [JURIST report], and Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] has said [press release] "[the new law] continues the sham political process that is aimed at creating the appearance of civilian rule with a military spine."

[JURIST] A group of Senate Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation [text, PDF] aimed at curbing foreign and corporate influence in elections after a recent Supreme Court [official website] decision eased restrictions on campaign spending [JURIST report]. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder], the Supreme Court struck down Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) [text, PDF], which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. According to a press release [text], the legislation, entitled the DISCLOSE Act, seeks to:

partly restore those limits - by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures - and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads.

[JURIST] Ukrainian prosecutors said Thursday that they may file criminal charges in connection with Tuesday's Parliament [official website, in Ukrainian] session in which lawmakers hurled eggs and smoke bombs [AP report] and engaged in physical violence. Chaos broke out Tuesday as lawmakers approved a treaty [press release, in Ukrainian] that will extend Russia's lease on a naval base in the Ukrainian Sevastopol port on the Black Sea until 2042 in exchange for discounted Russian gas. The agreement was strongly opposed by pro-Western lawmakers who threw eggs and smoke bombs at the speaker in an attempt to stop the vote. Despite the pandemonium, the measure passed with 236 votes in the 450-member parliament, and the treaty was signed into law Thursday. Prosecutors said that those responsible for the mayhem could face charges of hooliganism [CBC report], which carries a penalty of four years imprisonment.

The treaty comes soon after the election [JURIST report] of President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], who took office in February. Yanukovych replaced Viktor Yushchenko [JURIST news archive], who had sought to cut ties with Russia and strengthen relationships with Western Europe. Yushchenko opposed the extension of Russia's Black Sea lease.

[JURIST] The Chinese government on Thursday revised its often-criticized state secrets [JURIST news archive] law to require Internet and telecommunications companies to inform on customers who share state secrets. This new provision may provide a disincentive [FT report] to many service providers from entering China, particularly when considered along with China's Internet filtering laws [BBC backgrounder]. The new law also narrows the definition [Xinhua report] of state secrets. As approved by parliament, the phrase state secrets now means, "information concerning state security and interests and, if leaked, would damage state security and interests in the areas of politics, economy and national defense." The amended state secrets law will take effect in October.

China's state secrets law has frequently been criticized for the breadth of action which falls under the doctrine. In November 2009, rights activist Huang Qi was sentenced to three years in prison [JURIST report] for violating the state secrets law, when he discussed how some schools collapsed after the Sichuan province earthquake [BBC backgrounder] in 2008 because of shoddy construction. China began a review of its state secrets law last June, after concerns were raised regarding Internet filtering software [JURIST reports] on computers sold in that country.

Last week, the BiH war crimes court convicted two individuals [JURIST report], Radomir Vukovic and Zoran Tomic, for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre, sentencing each to 31 years in prison. In March, the court indicted a former Serbian police commander, Nedjo Ikonic, for his alleged role at Srebrenica. The BiH war crimes court was originally formed in 2005 to relieve the caseload of the ICTY, and retains jurisdiction over crimes considered to be of a lower level, while the ICTY hears high-level cases, such as those involving Radovan Karadzic [JURIST news archive]. The BiH war crimes court handed down its first decision in 2008.

In January, the UK Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that executive orders allowing the government to freeze the assets of five suspected terrorists are illegal. The men involved in the court's inaugural case [JURIST report] argued that the government exceeded its power when the Treasury froze their assets without the approval of Parliament. The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed a 2008 High Court ruling [JURIST report], which found that the Treasury may not freeze the assets of the five suspected terrorists without the approval of Parliament. The seizures were conducted pursuant to two Orders in Council [backgrounder], the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures] Order 2006 [texts]. The orders implemented UN resolutions requiring UN member states to freeze the assets of people on the UN list of suspected terrorists. The High Court rejected the orders because they were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny before they came into force.

[JURIST] The US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website] on Tuesday removed [press release] accused Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive] criminal Marko Boskic to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Boskic will stand trial in Sarajevo for his role in the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive] in 1995, where 1,200 unarmed prisoners of war were killed. Boskic was first arrested [Boston Globe report] in the US in 2004, when immigration officials charged him with fraud and misuse of a visa for not reporting his foreign military service. During his imprisonment on those immigration-related charges, ICE worked with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] to investigate Boskic's alleged role at Srebrenica. Depending on the severity of Boskic's role, he will be tried either in the ICTY or the BiH war crimes court [official website].

Last week, the BiH war crimes court convicted two individuals [JURIST report], Radomir Vukovic and Zoran Tomic, for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre, sentencing each to 31 years in prison. In March, the court indicted a former Serbian police commander, Nedjo Ikonic, for his alleged role at Srebrenica. The BiH war crimes court was originally formed in 2005 to relieve the caseload of the ICTY, and retains jurisdiction over crimes considered to be of a lower level, while the ICTY hears high-level cases, such as those involving Radovan Karadzic [JURIST news archive]. The BiH war crimes court handed down its first decision in 2008.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled [materials; press release, PDF] Thursday that the UK may not restrict government benefits to the spouses and families of suspected terrorists. The challenge was brought by three women whose husbands' names appear on the UN list of terror suspects [materials] that have been linked to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden, resulting in their assets being frozen pursuant to an EU regulation. Under a regime established by the UK Treasury [official website] in 2006, terror suspects' spouses could only receive government benefits under certain conditions [Guardian report], including withdrawing only 10 pounds in cash for each family member, sending a detailed monthly expense list and receipts to the Treasury, and accepting that giving cash to their husbands would be a criminal offense. The ECJ struck down the Treasury's interpretation of the EU rules, finding that it does not fulfill the purpose of combating international terrorism. The case will now return [BBC report] to the UK Supreme Court [official website] for a final ruling.

In January, the UK Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that executive orders allowing the government to freeze the assets of five suspected terrorists are illegal. The men involved in the court's inaugural case [JURIST report] argued that the government exceeded its power when the Treasury froze their assets without the approval of Parliament. The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed a 2008 High Court ruling [JURIST report], which found that the Treasury may not freeze the assets of the five suspected terrorists without the approval of Parliament. The seizures were conducted pursuant to two Orders in Council [backgrounder], the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures] Order 2006 [texts]. The orders implemented UN resolutions requiring UN member states to freeze the assets of people on the UN list of suspected terrorists. The High Court rejected the orders because they were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny before they came into force.

[JURIST] Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli [official profile, in Spanish] said Wednesday that his government will seek the extradition of former military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], currently being held in France on money laundering charges. Noriega faces charges of human rights violations in Panama for crimes allegedly committed during his 1981-1989 rule. He was convicted on three counts of human rights violations in absentia, and each count carries a 20-year prison sentence. Panama's Vice President and Foreign Affairs Minister Juan Carlos Varela [official profile, in Spanish] said Wednesday that his office will write to the judicial branch [AFP report], which must make the extradition request.

Earlier this week, a French judge ruled that Noriega must remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited [JURIST report] from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. He had fought extradition [JURIST report] from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

[JURIST] Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli [official profile, in Spanish] said Wednesday that his government will seek the extradition of former military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], currently being held in France on money laundering charges. Noriega faces charges of human rights violations in Panama for crimes allegedly committed during his 1981-1989 rule. He was convicted on three counts of human rights violations in absentia, and each count carries a 20-year prison sentence. Panama's Vice President and Foreign Affairs Minister Juan Carlos Varela [official profile, in Spanish] said Wednesday that his office will write to the judicial branch [AFP report], which must make the extradition request.

Earlier this week, a French judge ruled that Noriega must remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited [JURIST report] from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. He had fought extradition [JURIST report] from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.