The ICTY began the war crimes trial [JURIST report] against Djordjevic in January 2009. Djordjevic was arrested [JURIST report] in 2007 and formally indicted [indictment, PDF] in July 2008 for his participation in crimes against humanity, murder and illegal deportation. The ICTY has also pursued criminal action against other leaders in the Kosovo conflict. On Tuesday, the ICTY began the trial [JURIST report] of former Serb nationalist politician Vojislav Seselj on charges that he released the names of 11 ICTY witnesses in violation of a confidentiality order. Last week, the ICTY ordered a six-week suspension [JURIST report] of the trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic so he could review material sent to him by the prosecution. Former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic [ICTY case materials; JURIST news archive] was tried for committing war crimes in the region, but died before a verdict could be issued. The ICTY acquitted [JURIST report] former Kosovo Prime Minister and Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) commander Ramush Haradinaj of all war crimes charges. Haradin Bala was convicted [UN Press release] and sentenced to 13 years in prison for his involvement with the KLA and the torture of prisoners of war. Two others were acquitted in that case.

In a recent decision, Beard v. Kindler, ... this Court clarified that a state procedural bar may count as an adequate and independent ground for denying a federal habeas petition even if the state court had discretion to reach the merits despite the default. Guided by that decision, we hold that California is not put to the choice of imposing a specific deadline for habeas petitions (which would almost certainly rule out Martin's nearly five-year delay) or preserving the flexibility of current practice, but only at the cost of undermining the finality of state court judgments. In so ruling, we stress that Martin has not alleged that California's time bar, either by design or in operation, discriminates against federal claims or claimants.

The petitioner, Charles Martin, was sentenced to life without parole for murder and filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in the California Supreme Court, nearly fives years after his conviction became final. He had no explanation for the delay in the filing. The court dismissed Martin's claim as untimely under the California law. Having exhausted his state remedies, Martin filed a federal habeas petition in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California [official website] raising the same issues. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely stating that the rejection "rested on an adequate and independent state ground, i.e., Martin's failure to seek relief in state court without substantial delay."

The decision to do justice in Libya should be taken by the Libyan people. Currently, Libya is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Therefore, intervention by the ICC on the alleged crimes committed in Libya can occur only if the Libyan authorities accept the jurisdiction of the Court, (through article 12(3) of the Rome Statute). In the absence of such step, the United Nations Security Council can decide to refer the situation to the Court. The Office of the Prosecutor will act only after either decision is taken

The situation in Libya has escalated over days of continued protests and violent suppression by security forces. On Monday, Saif al-Islam, son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], announced in a televised address [video] following several days of protests that the Libyan government is considering adopting a constitution [JURIST report] and allowing greater freedoms. The protests began last week following those that have occurred throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], resulting in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports]. Protesters have demanded Gaddafi's resignation and government reform since the start of protests in Benghazi, Libya's second city. Last week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called for an end to violence against protesters [JURIST report] in Bahrain and elsewhere, referencing recent attempts to quell protests sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

The more important reason why [the US Department of Transportation] did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective. ... But that fact - the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost effectiveness - cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion.

The court heard arguments [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on the matter in November, during which time counsel for the petitioners, joined by the US government as amicus curiae, argued that "[t]he claim is not preempted, because it is perfectly consistent with and would not frustrate the objectives of the operative 1989 version of Standard 208 governing Type 2 seat belts in rear seats." The petitioners also claimed that Mazda [corporate website] had a duty to warn of safety risks associated with lap-only seat belts under Wyeth v. Levine [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], in which the Supreme Court ruled that federal approval of labels giving warnings about effects of drugs does not bar lawsuits under state law claiming inadequate warnings of a health risk. Counsel for respondents countered that the claim should be preempted because the federal government did not merely provide a minimum standard, but left the option to the manufacturer because of safety trade-offs for each type of seat belt. The court granted certiorari [cert. petition, PDF; JURIST report] in May.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

Last month, the DOJ filed a brief [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] defending the constitutionality of DOMA. The appeal followed a July ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which found that Section 3 of DOMA violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and State Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment [text]. In its brief, the DOJ argued that DOMA is in line with those sections of the constitution, stating that DOMA was "rationally related" to maintaining "consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits." Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, initiated the suit [JURIST report] against the federal government in July 2009. In November, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy websites] filed separate lawsuits [JURIST report] challenging DOMA. Plaintiffs in the GLAD case allege that they have been denied certain marriage benefits and protections that are available to similarly situation heterosexual couples in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont. The plaintiff in the ACLU case is challenging provisions of DOMA that deprive of her certain tax deductions she would receive as a widow.

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, SA [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court will determine whether the state of mind necessary for for a finding of inducing patent infringement is "deliberate indifference of a known risk" as elucidated by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct", as stated by the court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. [Oyez backgrounder]. Under 35 USC § 271(b) [text], a patent owner may bring suit against an individual "who actively induces infringement of a patent." The petitioners stood accused of inducing infringement of a patented deep fryer produced by SEB. The trial court allowed the issue to go to the jury, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence even though petitioners had no knowledge of SEB's patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed, using the "deliberate indifference to a known risk" standard. Counsel for petitioners argued that that the Supreme Court has already announced the necessary state of mind in Grokster and that active inducement requires purposeful conduct. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, challenging counsel for the petitioners, noted that the infringement opinion, which petitioners sought and relied on heavily in their argument, was not well-informed, stating, "[b]ut [they] didn't tell that patent attorney that they had reverse-engineered a particular product. If the attorney had been told this device copied the SEB fryer, isn't it 99 and 44/100ths percent sure that the attorney then would have found this patent?" Scalia quickly followed up, focusing on why petitioners did not tell the infringement opinion attorney about their reverse-engineering of the SEB product. Petitioner's counsel answered that, "their practice was not to notify the attorney." Counsel for SEB argued that actual knowledge of the patent would be an appropriate standard for finding inducement, provided that "willful blindness" be accepted as a means of proving actual knowledge, even though neither "knowing" nor "knowledge" appear in that portion of the statute.

The health care reform law is the subject of numerous legal challenges and inconsistent rulings across the country. Last week, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) asked federal judge Roger Vinson to clarify that states must continue to enact the PPACA [JURIST report] as the government appeals from Vinson's January ruling finding the law unconstitutional. A Virginia appeals court is scheduled to hear challenges to two conflicting lower-court rulings in May—one upholding the legislation and the other invalidating part of it. In December, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional [JURIST report] but left the remainder of the law intact. Earlier that month, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging a provision of the health care reform law. In October, a federal judge in Michigan ruled [JURIST report] that the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Algeria has been under a state of emergency since 1992 when the military canceled elections [WP report] fearing a win by religious fundamentalists. The state of emergency was declared [DOS backgrounder] after it became apparent that the militant Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would win control of the government. Bouteflika came to power, winning the presidency in 1999 with 70 percent of the official vote and appearing to have the backing of the military. He and the Council of Ministers' willingness to appease protesters appears connected to the protests that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa since protesters in Tunisia ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali [JURIST report] last month. Saif al-Islam, son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], announced in a televised address [JURIST report] following several days of protests that the Libyan government is considering adopting a constitution and allowing greater freedoms. Earlier this month, President Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile] announced his resignation [JURIST report] amid unrelenting protests across Egypt. Iranian opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi [JURIST news archive] was placed under house arrest [JURIST report] in relation to calls by Karroubi and fellow opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi [JURIST news archive] for rallies in support of the recent political reform movements in Tunisia and Egypt.