The decision brought to rest a 14-year battle between Lego and Canadian-based competitor Mega Brands [corporate website], which manufactures a similar product. Lego initially obtained an OHIM trademark in 1999, which Mega Brands successfully had canceled in 2004. Wednesday's decision was an appeal of OHIM's final ruling in 2006. The dispute between the companies has been litigated in many jurisdictions. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada [official website] ruled that Mega Brands had a right to sell its product [judgment text].

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January that the Proposition 8 trial could not be broadcast on YouTube [website] because the district court did not follow proper procedure when enacting a rule permitting the broadcast. In staying the broadcast, the court ruled that there was a significant likelihood that the district court had not allowed enough time for the public to comment between proposing and enacting the rule, which ended a ban on recording court proceedings in certain cases. The court also found that the high-profile nature of the trial might intimidate witnesses and cause irreparable harm if the rule were not stayed. The Supreme Court itself has a longstanding ban on the use of cameras, but began releasing audio tapes of the proceedings after the Bush v. Gore [text] decision in 2000. Last month, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) [official website], who has long advocated televised Supreme Court proceedings, pledged a floor vote [Post-Gazette report] on the issue before he leaves office at the end of this term.

French authorities also arrested [JURIST report] the widow of assassinated Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana [Britannica profile], Agathe Habyarimana, in March on suspicions of complicity in genocide. That arrest came only days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official profile; JURIST news archive] visited Rwanda and said that he would cooperate [JURIST report] in finding those accused of genocide. Rwanda continues to try those involved in the genocide, as does the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive]. The ICTR was established for the prosecution of high-level officials responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law during the Rwandan genocide. As of May 2009, it has rendered judgments or has trials underway [completion strategy report, PDF] for 68 suspects, with six suspects awaiting trials, one retrial and 13 fugitives.

This incident should be investigated thoroughly and impartially and those responsible should be brought to justice. ... I am deeply disturbed about these killings which highlight the continuing deterioration of the situation in Darfur.

While violence has been declining in Darfur, the September incident is one of several recent clashes between Sudanese government forces, militias, and rebel groups marking unrest in the region since President Omar al-Bashir [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was re-elected [JURIST report] in April. In July, the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] charged al-Bashir [case materials; JURIST report] with three counts of genocide [warrant, PDF] in relation to the Darfur conflict. The chamber found that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that Bashir had committed genocide against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. The genocide charges were added to the seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity that were filed against Bashir [JURIST report] in March 2009. Also in July, Chief prosecutor of the ICC Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] called for the arrest of al-Bashir [JURIST report], saying that he will eventually face trial before the ICC.

The most important safeguard [against violation of free expression rights] was the guarantee of review by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body. It should be carried out by a body separate from the executive and other interested parties, invested with the power to determine whether a requirement in the public interest overriding the principle of protection of journalistic sources existed prior to the handing over of such material and to prevent unnecessary access to information capable of disclosing the sources' identity if it did not. ... In the Netherlands ... that decision was entrusted to the public prosecutor rather than an independent judge. In terms of procedure the public prosecutor was a "party", who could hardly be seen as objective and impartial.

Many recent disputes have arisen over freedom of the press in Europe, with the ECHR at the center of a number of them. Also Tuesday, the tribunal ruled [JURIST report] that Turkey failed to protect the life of well-known Turkish-American writer and journalist Hrant Dink [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive], failed to adequately investigate his murder and infringed on his right to freedom of expression. Dink, editor of the newspaper Agos [media website] was killed [JURIST report] in January 2007 after law enforcement officials had been informed that an assassination was likely but did not act on the information. In April, the ECHR ordered the government of Azerbaijan [JURIST report] to secure the immediate release of imprisoned Azeri journalist Eynulla Fatuallyev, who was jailed on what many international organizations claim are spurious charges. Last October, the court ruled that Turkish authorities violated [JURIST report] European human rights laws in shutting down four newspapers accused of publishing propaganda for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in a ruling also based on Article 10.

There is positive assurance that the UK facilities in Afghanistan are run in compliance with applicable international law, UK regulations and Defence policy. No evidence was seen or obtained to suggest that pre-deployment and in-theatre training are failing to prepare forces to carry out detainee handling in accordance with the law and policy. On operations in Afghanistan, commanders are clearly focused on this issue; governance mechanisms are in place to monitor and assure detainee handling processes, with any allegations of improper behaviour (including complaints by the detainees themselves) being formally investigated.

In July, a UK High Court of Justice allowed a lawsuit to proceed [JURIST report] that seeks to force the UK government to hold a public inquiry into torture allegations [JURIST news archive] made against the UK military during the occupation of Iraq. The suit was brought by 102 men who claim they were subjected to torture, including hooding, electrical shocks and sexual abuse while being held in UK detention centers. The court held that the accusers had adduced sufficient evidence to suggest that their treatment was systemic. The forthcoming investigation stems from a similar civil action, brought by 12 ex-detainees who allege that British agents participated in their abuse while they were held in prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and other countries. The UK will ask them to drop their lawsuits in exchange for possible compensation and a promise that the impending inquiry will fully investigate their claims. In June, the UK government indicated that it will issue a new set of regulations regarding the use of information obtained via torture [JURIST report] as claims of complicity in torture were made against the government in a Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] report [materials] released the same day.