Last month, Indonesia's government admitted the involvement of its soldiers [JURIST report] in the torture video. Indonesia has recently faced criticism over a variety of recent human rights issues. In June, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report [report materials; JURIST report] criticizing the Indonesian government for its treatment of Papuan [Economist backgrounder] and Moluccan [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] secessionists who, according to the report, face imprisonment, torture and denial of medical treatment for their beliefs. In April, the Constitutional Court voted 8-1 to uphold [JURIST report] a controversial anti-blasphemy law enacted in 1965 by the first Indonesian president. In 2008, HRW called for Indonesia to protect freedom of religion [JURIST report] and reverse a decree that provides for the prosecution of members of a controversial Islamic sect and to uphold its commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [text].

In United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether 28 USC § 1500 [text] deprives the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) [official website] of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government's alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits. 28 USC § 1500 provides that the CFC lacks jurisdiction over "any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff has any suit or process against the United States" or its agents "pending in any other court." The Tohono O'odham Nation filed a complaint against the US in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and, one day later, it filed a similar complaint against the US in the CFC. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF] the CFC's dismissal of the case, concluding "that the Nation's complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeks relief that is different from the relief sought in its earlier-filed district court action." Counsel for the US government argued:

The Federal Circuit erred in holding that section 1500 applies when both suits -- only when both suits seek the same relief, and that the critical distinction in this regard is whether the particular relief in the plaintiff's plea for relief is deemed legal or equitable. Section 1500's text broadly bars CFC jurisdiction whenever any suit that the plaintiff has pending in any other court is a suit for the CFC claim or is merely a suit in respect to that claim. In other words, another suit for a different but a related claim will trigger section 1500.

The court will also hear the case of Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], to determine whether the rights of universities under the Bayh-Dole Act [35 USC §§ 200-212] to inventions arising from federally funded research can be terminated by the individual inventors through separate agreements assigning the inventor's rights to a third party. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Roche possesses an ownership interest in the patents at issue, depriving Stanford's standing to sue. The appeals court also remanded the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California, finding that the trial court incorrectly failed to consider Roche's affirmative defense based on ownership of the patents in issue.

In Davis v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the Fourth Amendment [text] exclusionary rule requires the suppression of evidence obtained from a search permitted by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decision in United States v. Gonzalez [opinion text], after the court overturned Gonzalez in Arizona v. Gant [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. The Eleventh Circuit refused to apply the exclusionary rule, holding [opinion, PDF] that the search was objectively reasonable when relying on the then-binding precedent and that the good faith exception allows the use of evidence obtained under reasonable reliance on well-settled precedent.

In Turner v. Price [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appoint counsel at a civil contempt proceeding resulting in his imprisonment. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held [opinion text] that, because the incarceration of the defendant was not a permanent or unconditional loss of liberty as he can avoid it by complying with the court's orders, he does not maintain the constitutional right to appointed counsel. The court will also consider whether it has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, ordering the parties to submit briefs on the issue.

The court will also hear the case of Fox v. Vice [docket, cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether 42 USC § 1988 [text] permits the court to award defendants attorney's fees based on an action dismissing a claim when the plaintiff also asserts non-frivolous claims. The court will also consider if it is improper to award defendants the full amount of attorney's fees incurred while defending non-frivolous claims along with a frivolous claim. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the granting of attorney's fees.

Additionally, the court requested the Acting Solicitor General to submit views on PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana [docket, cert. petition, PDF] and Crane v. Atwell. Montana presents the question of if the constitutional test for determining whether a section of the river is navigable for title purposes requires a trial court to determine if the relevant stretch of the river was navigable at the time the state joined the Union. The Supreme Court of Montana held [opinion, PDF] that the title to the riverbeds passed to Montana when it became a state in 1889 and that the riverbeds are public trust lands under Article X, Section 11. Addressing the question of whether a State's attempt to claim title and impose rent obligations for use of the riverbeds is preempted when a hydropower project is licensed under the Federal Power Act [text], the court additionally affirmed the lower court's finding of damages.

Crane v. Atwell [docket; cert. petition, PDF] presents the question of whether federal law preempts the litigation of state court claims based on work related asbestos exposure where the employment and exposure occurs in a railroad maintenance facility. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held [opinion, PDF] that no federal preemption occurs because Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) [official website] regulations apply.

Also on Monday, the court denied certiorari in Wong v. Smith [docket].

The international community has been supporting actions taken against maritime piracy, but the UN has recently had to call for nations to assist Kenya in conducting piracy trials [JURIST report]. In June, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) announced [JURIST report] that it would spend more than USD $9.3 million to fund courts that prosecute suspected Somali pirates. This action came in response to the Kenyan government's announcement in April that it would no longer accept [JURIST report] Somali pirate cases due to its overburdened legal system. The month of April also saw the UN Security Council approve a resolution [JURIST report] calling on member states to criminalize piracy under their domestic laws as well as an announcement from the UN that a trust fund established to combat piracy will be funding five projects [UN News Centre report] in an effort to help Somalia and its neighbors reduce acts of piracy committed in nearby bodies of water.

the Chamber was satisfied that the demolition of the Nyange Church was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the Tutsi civilian population on ethnic grounds and that the accused knew that his acts formed part of this broader attack. The Chamber also found that the accused intentionally participated in a mass killing of Tutsi civilians amounting to extermination as a crime against humanity.

The ICTR continues its work to prosecute those most responsible for the Rwandan genocide, but its work is hampered by a lack of resources, leading the tribunal to ask the UN for assistance [JURIST report] in October. In September, the ICTR opened the trial of a former Kivumu mayor [JURIST report], charged in connection with deaths at a church in that town in April 1994. The tribunal has faced adversity since its creation, including the shooting death [JURIST report] of one of the senior defense lawyers in July. Earlier this year, Joseph Nzirorea, former president of the Rwanda National Assembly and secretary general of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, died while on trial [JURIST report] for conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [text].

The ban on YouTube was implemented [JURIST report] in 2008 after insulting clips of Ataturk were discovered on the site. Earlier this year, the TIB also placed a ban on certain Google sites [JURIST report], which made it difficult for Turkish citizens to access YouTube indirectly. Turkish President Abdullah Gul criticized these bans [JURIST report] on his Twitter account and called for them to be lifted. The OSCE has repeated called on Turkey to bring its penal code in line with OSCE commitments and international standards. Specifically, Article 301 [AI Backgrounder] of the Turkish penal code, which criminalizes insulting "Turkishness," has been criticized for too-strictly limiting free speech, a limitation that is seen as a stumbling block [JURIST report] for Turkey's admittance to the EU.

Last week, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict [official website] urged the US not to imprison [JURIST report] Khadr. Radhika Coomaraswamy [official profile], through a letter sent to the US military commission, stated that Khadr meets the classic qualifications for being considered a child solider and that returning him to Canada for rehabilitation would be a better outcome than a US prison. Khadr's trial was postponed earlier this month [JURIST report] while lawyers for both sides attempted to reach a plea agreement. In late August, the military judge rejected Khadr's claim that his confession was a byproduct of torture [JURIST report]. Earlier in August, the same judge ruled that Khadr's confession was admissible at trial [JURIST report]. Canada had previously declined to seek Khadr's repatriation [JURIST report].