Although States have legitimate interests in securing their borders and exercising immigration controls, such concerns cannot, and indeed, as a matter of international law do not, trump the obligations of the State to respect the internationally guaranteed rights of all persons, to protect those rights against abuses, and to fulfill the rights necessary for them to enjoy a life of dignity and security.

In July, French President Nicholas Sarkozy [official website, in French] ordered measures [press release] against illegal Roma [JURIST news archive] communities in France and announced new legislation [JURIST report] aimed at making their deportation easier. 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. The government identified the Roma's illegal settlements as sources of illicit trafficking, unworthy living conditions, and the exploitation of children for begging, prostitution or crime. In April, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] signed into law [press release, PDF] a controversial bill [SB1070 materials; JURIST news archive] that requires any individual suspected of being an illegal immigrant to present valid identification to law enforcement officials. The legislation [JURIST report] gives police officers permission to determine the immigration status of any individual who arouses reasonable suspicion, criminalizes the hiring of illegal immigrants for day labor, and allows citizens to sue the local government if they believe the policy is not being used properly. Both measures have drawn significant criticism both internationally and domestically, and have been charged with stigmatizing migrant communities.

The EC formally notified [JURIST report] the UK in April 2009 that it was starting infringement proceedings [EC backgrounder] for failure to follow EU Internet privacy and data protection rules [text]. The commission specifically referred to "Phorm" [BBC report], an Internet technology used by UK Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor user web-surfing habits and deliver personalized advertising without the user's consent. The program was stopped after public outrage, but the EC said it was unsatisfied with the official response to "Phorm" and pointed that out weak UK laws meant that the authorities could do little to actively protect user privacy. The EC called for an overhaul of UK laws, giving the government two months to respond.

The Indian government increased security [Times of India report] around Ayodhya and Delhi in anticipation of Thursday's ruling. Measures implemented by the government included blocking mass text messaging [NYT report] in order to prevent large, organized protests. The government also stationed paramilitary units across the Uttar Pradesh region and at culturally significant sites including the Taj Mahal. In addition to government efforts, officials representing both Muslims and Hindus urged the public to remain calm in light of the decision.

The Russian government has been highly criticized for its alleged role in the deaths of several high-profile individuals who died under suspicious circumstances. Last November, a suspect was arrested [JURIST report] for the double murder [JURIST report] of human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova. Markelov had represented famed journalist Anna Politskovskaya [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive] who was shot and killed [JURIST report] in 2006. To date, no one has been convicted [JURIST report] for Politkovskaya's murder. Russia has also received a great deal of criticism for apparently baseless detentions such as Magnitsky's. The expropriation of OAO Yukos Oil Co. [Time backgrounder] and the indictment against and detention of company founder, Mikhail Khordorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive] have provoked the condemnation [JURIST op-ed] of many legal experts abroad.

US President Barack Obama [official profile] said last year in a speech on national security [transcript; JURIST report] that preventing Ghailani from coming to the US would prevent his trial and conviction and that it is time to see that justice is served. Ghailani was the first Guantanamo detainee to be brought to the US for prosecution. Having been held at the Guantanamo facility since 2006, Ghailani was transferred [JURIST report] to the SDNY in June 2009 to face 286 separate counts, including involvement in the bombings and conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans worldwide. He pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] at his initial appearance.

By ignoring the plain language of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are applicable by their terms to habeas corpus proceedings, and by applying a lower standard of proof than has ever been approved by this Court for review of prolonged detention, the District Court and the Court of Appeals have effectively gutted this Court's holding in Boumediene that habeas corpus is a fundamental right to which detainees in Guantanamo are entitled. This Court should not permit its decision to be undermined by the lower courts through such procedural unfairness.

In July, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] released a partially redacted opinion [text, PDF, JURIST report] denying al Odah habeas corpus relief. The court affirmed the district court's ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that there was sufficient evidence against al Odah for him to be considered "part of" al Qaeda and Taliban forces. The US government is given authority to detain suspects who can be considered "part of" al Qaeda or the Taliban under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [text, PDF], and the district court found that it was more likely than not that al Odah "became part of Taliban and al Qaeda forces" after traveling to Afghanistan and attending a terrorist training camp. Lawyers for al Odah attempted to argue that the individual pieces of evidence against him could be explained without reaching the conclusion that he was a member of al Qaeda. The case has been pending since 2002 and was a companion case in Boumediene v. Bush, as well as the 2004 Supreme Court decision of Rasul v. Bush [opinion text; JURIST report], in which the court ruled that US courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges brought by foreign-born detainees to contest their captivity and treatment at Guantanamo Bay.

Nothing in the newly-presented evidence contradicts or distinguishes the Circuit's reasoning - reasoning that gives this Court no choice but to conclude that "the special needs of foreign affairs must stay our hand in the creation of damage remedies against military and foreign policy officials for allegedly unconstitutional treatment of foreign subjects causing injury abroad ..." Nor have plaintiffs demonstrated how additional discovery will distinguish this case from Rasul II such the Court can evade the Circuit's clear holding.

Huvelle ruled [JURIST report] in February that the claims brought on behalf of the two detainees were barred by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) [text, PDF]. The court also found that, since the two men were properly detained, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The claim was brought [JURIST report] against former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] and more than 100 military officers and personnel under the Alien Tort Claims Act [text], which provides that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear claims for torts "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The defendants moved to dismiss the suit based on section 7 of the MCA, which removes the ability of federal courts to hear challenges to the treatment of aliens who have been "properly detained" as enemy combatants.

Last month, Fonseka announced his decision to appeal [JURIST report] a separate conviction on charges of engaging in politics while on active duty. Fonseka was accused [JURIST report] of trying to secure a place in a political party before he quit his military position. Accordingly, he was dishonorably discharged and stripped of his rank, medals and pension. In July, the High Court of Sri Lanka [official website] conducted the first hearing in a case accusing Fonseka of provoking violence and bringing disrepute to the government. The charges are in relation to statements made to the Sunday Leader [media website] newspaper, which suggested that the government of Rajapaksa ordered the killing of surrendering rebel leaders during the Sri Lankan civil war.

Many influential Kenyans fear the potential outcome of the ICC investigations. Last week, Kenyan businessman Joseph Gathungu filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the ICC investigation, arguing that it is illegal under the new constitution. Also last week, ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] announced [JURIST report] plans to present two cases against as many as six individuals who "bear the greatest responsibility" for the violence. In June, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called on Kenya to establish a special tribunal [JURIST report] to investigate post-election crimes. Pillay warned that the ICC's role would be limited to a handful of high-profile cases, which is why the need for a more wide-reaching investigation remains. The allegations of fraud [JURIST report] following the 2007 elections led to violence that caused the deaths of more than 1,000 people and displacement of 500,000 others, and remains a concern in the international community. The ICC initiated a formal investigation into the violence after Kenya failed to conduct [JURIST report] its own investigation.

In July, an Israeli military probe into the flotilla incident found insufficient intelligence and planning, but concluded that no punishments were necessary [JURIST report]. Israel also established a civilian commission [JURIST report] in June to investigate its response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [official website] testified before the civilian commission [JURIST report] in August and expressed confidence that the commission would find Israeli actions to be in compliance with international law, explaining the Israeli response to the flotilla in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. The incident took place on May 31 when Israeli forces raided six ships attempting to deliver more than 10,000 tons of aid to Gaza. The raid left numerous wounded and resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestine activists—eight Turks and one American.

This news comes the day after Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged EU members to stop forcibly deporting Roma migrants to Kosovo [JURIST report]. Also on Tuesday, France's National Assembly [official website, in French] began considering a new bill that would make it easier to deport illegal immigrants and strip immigrants accused of violent crimes of their French citizenship. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] criticized the bill because it targets minority populations, particularly the Roma. Earlier this month, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding [official profile] threatened legal action [JURIST report] against France for its deportation of Roma, calling the intitiave "a disgrace." Also this month, more than 100,000 people in 130 cities across France protested [JURIST report] the security policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French], including his decision to deport [JURIST reports] the illegal Roma. In August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] unveiled a review [JURIST report] of France's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [text]. The report raised questions about draft legislation that would strip naturalized citizens of citizenship for committing certain crimes and the decision to dismantle 300 unauthorized Roma encampments.