Also Monday, the court heard arguments in Walker v. Martin [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether a state law barring a prisoner from collaterally attacking his conviction is adequate to support a procedural bar to filing a habeas corpus petition. A California state law prevents prisoners from collaterally attacking their judgment when the prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. The court will decide whether the law is inadequate to bar the collateral attack because it is vague and because state courts failed to apply the state law consistently. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that the state's law was not well-established or "consistently applied" and therefore did not constitute a procedural bar to collaterally attacking the conviction.

Last month, UN Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] and Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] each requested [JURIST reports] that the US investigate alleged human rights abuses committed by US soldiers in Iraq detailed in documents posted on WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in July that documents posted to the website may tie the US to war crimes in Afghanistan. Also in July, the US Army formally charged [JURIST report] Pfc. Bradley Manning [advocacy website; NYT backgrounder] for leaking a controversial classified video [YouTube video] of a 2007 US helicopter strike in Iraq and classified State Department documents. Manning faces two charges [charge sheet, PDF] under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) [text] for the transfer of classified information and exceeding his authorized computer access. Manning was detained in Kuwait in May after releasing the video, entitled "Collateral Murder," on Wikileaks. Wikileaks does not ask sources to identify themselves, but Manning was reported to authorities by former hacker Andrian Lamo, who learned of the leaks after forming an online friendship with the soldier. Due to the gravity of the charges, Manning's investigation could lead to a court-martial.

North Korea's ongoing conflict with the South is not the only human rights issue for which the country has faced criticism. Earlier this month, a UN committee condemned [JURIST report] what it called persistent, "grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights" of its own people. In March, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] adopted a resolution [JURIST report] condemning North Korea for human rights violations. The resolution [A/HRC/13/L.13 materials] decried "grave, widespread and systematic human rights abuses in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in particular the use of torture and labour camps against political prisoners and repatriated citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Seeing little improvement, the council extended the assignment of Special Rapporteur Vitit Muntarbhorn [official profile], a Thai law professor who was appointed as a UN human rights expert in 2004, for one year and asked that North Korea and the UN General Assembly cooperate with and assist Muntarbhorn in his mission.

Aziz could have received the death penalty in this case for his actions against the Kurds, but the court did not impose that sentence and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] has indicated that he will not sign a death warrant [JURIST report] for Aziz's existing sentence. Earlier this month, Aziz's lawyer filed a petition [JURIST report] for pardon of his death sentence on the grounds that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. Aziz's family has also called for his release on health grounds, claiming he has had two heart attacks and suffered a stroke [JURIST report] in January. Aziz has been in prison since 2003.

In CSX Transportation v. McBride [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether recovery under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) [45 USC §§ 51-60 text] requires proof of proximate causation. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to hold [opinion, PDF] that common-law proximate causation is required to establish liability under FELA.

In Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the Patent Act [35 USC §§ 1-376 text] requires the invalidity defense to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit followed its precedent and held [opinion, PDF] that a challenger to a patent claim must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the appeals court held that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence as to damages or in granting enhanced damages.

The court denied certiorari in Harper v. Maverick Recording Company, involving damages for illegally downloaded music and Gameche v. California [dockets]. The court took no action in Wal-Mart v. Dukes [docket, cert. petition, PDF] on Monday.

In August, the Constitutional Court began hearing the case [JURIST report], which centered around the misuse of an EC electoral grant where the EC alleged funds from the grant had been transferred to senior party officials in violation of the Political Party Act [LoC Backgrounder]. The EC called for the dissolution of the party [JURIST report] in April for failing to report donations from the business community and alleged misuse of the funds. The commission's decision came amid some of the deadliest political clashes Thailand has experienced in nearly two decades, as Thai protesters, known as red shirts [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], called for new elections and Vejjajiva's resignation.

If put into practice, the amendment to the constitution risks violating Switzerland's obligations under international law, in particular the obligation not to return anyone to a country where they would be at risk of torture or other forms of persecution. Switzerland cannot, and must not, allow popular -- and xenophobic -- initiatives to override its obligations under international law. Switzerland should also grant persons subject to deportation the opportunity to appeal any decision.

The controversial vote comes one year after Swiss voters passed another SVP initiative to ban the construction of minarets [JURIST report], a type of tower associated with Islamic mosques. The ban was opposed by the international community [JURIST report] and angered Muslims around the world. In March, the UN Human Rights Council [official website] adopted a resolution [text, PDF; JURIST report] condemning international religious discrimination and xenophobia. The resolution specifically criticized Switzerland's ban on the construction of minarets. In December 2009, a Swiss Muslim launched a legal challenge [JURIST report] to the ban in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website]. It has been argued that the ban violates Articles 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF].