The UN has also recently taken action to create legal environments beneficial to those affected by HIV/AIDS. In July the UN Development Programme (UNDP) [official website] released a study [JURIST report] claiming that laws criminalizing homosexual activity are contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS in the Asia-Pacific region. The report comes one month after the launch of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, created by the UNDP and the UNAIDS Secretariat [official websites] in order to better understand the role played by the law [JURIST report] in facilitating universal access to AIDS prevention and treatment. The commission is charged with developing "actionable and evidence-informed recommendations" to create national legal environments with effective and efficient HIV/AIDS responses. UNAIDS strongly opposes any laws that restrict movement based on HIV-positive status, holding that such restrictions are discriminatory and do not prevent HIV transmission or protect public health.

Official corruption has long been a problem in Guatemala. In June, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court [official website, in Spanish] removed Attorney General Conrado Reyes from office after CICIG head Carlos Castresana accused him of ties to organized crime [JURIST reports]. Castresana included the accusation when citing his reasons for resigning from his position. An interim attorney general has been appointed, and Reyes has indicated he will not appeal the decision. In March, following an 11-month investigation with CICIG, Guatemalan authorities arrested two high-ranking police officials [JURIST report] tasked with leading the country's war on drugs on charges of corruption and drug trafficking. Also in March, the US State Department released its 2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report [text, PDF], which highlighted Guatemala as a key player in the Latin American drug trade. Corruption among high-ranking officials was cited as one of the country's biggest problems. The Guatemalan Congress voted to create CICIG [JURIST report] in 2007 in order to investigate organized crime and official corruption.

Fonseka is also fighting charges in the High Court of Sri Lanka for allegedly provoking violence and bringing disrepute to the government [JURIST report] in relation to statements made to the Sunday Leader [media website] newspaper. Fonseka suggested that the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa [BBC profile] ordered the killing of surrendering rebel leaders during the Sri Lankan civil war [JURIST news archive]. In April, Fonseka's trials were postponed [JURIST report] to allow the Court of Appeals of Sri Lanka [official website] to examine the legality of the court-martials.

Last month, the court convicted Marko Boskic [JURIST report] of committing crimes against humanity in the massacre. In June, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] convicted seven senior Bosnian Serb officials [JURIST report] of war crimes against Bosnian Muslims committed during the massacre. The ICTY trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] is still ongoing. Karadzic is the alleged mastermind behind the violence at Srebrenica. His trial resumed in April after the ICTY dismissed [JURIST report] Kardzic's latest motion to delay court proceedings, in which he argued that there had been a violation of his right to a fair hearing because the court had rejected previous evidentiary challenges. Karadzic's alleged co-conspirator, former Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic [case materials; JURIST news archive] is still at large.

Ahmad, a British citizen, has been incarcerated in the UK since his arrest and is currently awaiting a decision on whether he will be extradited to the US where he faces charges [JURIST report] of terrorism, conspiring to kill Americans and running a website used to fund terrorists and recruit al Qaeda members. In July the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] stayed the extradition [JURIST report] of Ahmad, holding that potential punishment could violate Human Rights Convention [text] provisions on the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. The court issued the injunction in order to further examine evidence against Ahmad and determine if the US sentencing standards, which includes life sentencing without parole, would lead to an Article 3 violation. The UK High Court approved the extradition [JURIST report] of Ahmad to the US in 2006 after the US offered assurances that it would not seek the death penalty, try the suspects before military tribunals or declare them enemy combatants.

The replacement of the boycotting justices comes amid legal and political controversy over the influence of Ortega and his party. In 2009, a panel of the Supreme Court consisting of members of the Sandinista party struck down a constitutional provision [JURIST report] banning presidential candidates from running for two consecutive terms. Several other Latin American countries have also recently dealt with the controversial issue of extending presidential term limits. In September 2009 the Colombian House of Representatives voted to approve [JURIST report] a bill to hold a referendum on whether President Alvaro Uribe [BBC profile] can run for a third presidential term. In March 2009, then-president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya [BBC profile] proposed a government poll [JURIST report] that would determine whether voters would be receptive to referendum establishing constitutional reform, in which extension of presidential term limits were suspected to be on the agenda.

Last month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] charged that Chinese authorities used excessive force [JURIST report] in responding to the and tortured those in custody following the demonstrations in violation of international law. In a report, "I Saw It With My Own Eyes" [materials], HRW said that the Chinese government violated the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials [text], which limits the use of force to that which is strictly necessary to protect life or to apprehend perpetrators of violent crimes. The Chinese government also violated international law in its handling of suspects held for involvement in the demonstrations by torturing and brutalizing them, not revealing the conditions in which suspects were held and not allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [advocacy website] to visit them, according to HRW. It went on to call for the Chinese government to release of all Tibetan detainees that have not been charged with a crime and to release accurate statistics about all Tibetans held and about the number of casualties.

Several issues addressed in the Committee's report on France has come under international scrutiny. Last month French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] ordered measures [JURIST report] against illegal Roma communities in France and announced new legislation aimed at making their deportation easier. The announcement comes a week after riots by members of the Roma community sparked by the shooting of a young man, resulting in the deployment of 300 troops [DW report]. The government aims to dismantle half of illegal Roma camps in the country within three months and to immediately deport of all those found to have broken the law. Earlier that month, the French National Assembly [official website, in French] approved a bill [JURIST report] that would make it illegal to wear the Islamic burqa [JURIST news archive] or other full face veils in public. Under the legislation, women who wear the veil can be required by police to show their face, and, if they refuse, they can be forced to attend citizenship classes or be charged a USD $185 fine. The proposed legislation would also make it a crime to force a woman to cover her face, with a penalty of one year in prison and a fine of USD $18,555. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] condemned the vote [press release] stating, "A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab as an expression of their identity or beliefs."

The trial began Tuesday with jury selection after Khadr pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and terrorism [JURIST reports] for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier and injured another when he was 15. UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy [official profile] criticized Tuesday's proceedings [press release], arguing the trial would set a dangerous precedent for child soldiers [CFR backgrounder] worldwide. She explained that "[c]hild soldiers must be treated primarily as victims and alternative procedures should be in place aimed at rehabilitation or restorative justice." The trial has also been criticized by Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire (L-QC) [official website], who has questioned the legitimacy of the proceedings. US military judge Army Colonel Patrick Parrish ruled Monday that the video and confession were admissible at trial. On Friday, the US Supreme Court refused to block the trial, and last month, the US District Court for the District of Columbia refused to lift the stay [JURIST reports] on his habeas corpus petition pending the conclusion of the trial.

DADT is unconstitutional as applied to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach because the government did not offer any evidence ... establishing that discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach for engaging in consensual sexual relations with a civilian of the same sex in the privacy of his offbase home significantly furthers the goal of maintaining discipline, good order, morale and unit cohesion. ... The Air Force's evidence was insufficient to meet its heavy burden[.] ... [It] failed to present any evidence ... to support its claim that Lt. Col. Fehrenbach's continued service on active duty would hinder those goals. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach would, in fact, be detrimental to morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

Last month, the US District Court for the Central District of California began the trial in a case challenging [JURIST report] the constitutionality of DADT. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the military policy violates the First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder]. Plaintiffs argued that under Lawrence and later precedent, the government must show that an interference with the private life of homosexuals is "necessary to further [important government interests]." In May, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the policy after a compromise was reached [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects it would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon spill. In July, a class-action lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] was filed against the company in a Louisiana state court alleging that its negligent actions led to the spill and that BP was further negligent in its oversight of the cleanup effort, resulting in volunteers falling ill due to inadequate protective equipment. In June, two lawsuits were filed against BP [JURIST report] alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [18 USC § 1961 et seq.] statute. The lawsuits allege that BP purposefully defrauded the American public in order to increase company profits. Also in June, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] is reviewing whether any civil or criminal laws were violated [JURIST report] by BP resulting in the oil spill. Earlier this week BP and the DOJ announced the completion of negotiations over the implementation of a $20 billion fund [JURIST report] to aid victims of the oil spill. At the completion of the deal, BP made a $3 billion initial deposit into the fund, with another $2 billion planned for the fourth fiscal quarter of 2010.

The measures used under the PTA have created a parallel, unfair and secretive shadow justice system for individuals who are suspected of terrorism-related activity. The effect of the control order regime has been to bypass the ordinary justice system ... The secret court procedures in control order hearings undermine the individual's right to a fair hearing and the restrictions the control order imposes on a person can amount to a deprivation of liberty.

The group recommends that the UK government repeal the PTA "immediately," commit to using the normal criminal justice system to prosecute suspected terrorists and make legal remedies available to those whose liberties may have been wrongfully constrained by control orders.

Uncertainty regarding how control orders fit in the UK's conventional justice system and the human rights impact they carry continues to generate controversy. Last month, the UK Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [decision text; JURIST report] that two terrorism suspects could sue the government for damages over wrongfully imposed control orders. In June, the UK Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a control order requiring an anonymous appellant to live 150 miles away from his family and operate under a 16-hour curfew violated his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (EHCR) [text]. In September, then-Home Secretary Alan Johnson [BBC profile] said the government would undertake a review [JURIST report] of the system. Johnson issued a ministerial statement [text] saying that his "current assessment is ... that the control order regime remains viable," but that he would "be keeping this assessment under review." In October 2007, the UK Law Lords ruled in a series of decisions that the government can continue to impose control orders [JURIST report] on terror suspects in lieu of detention, but said that some elements of the orders violate human rights.