US officials voiced concerns [statement] last month over the treatment of journalists in Turkey, while Turkish officials have warned other countries not to become involved in their domestic matters. In June, a Turkish criminal court began the trial [JURIST report] of 33 retired and active naval officers accused of attempting to overthrow the government and establish military rule as part of the Ergenekon plot. The Turkish government indicted the 33 defendants [JURIST report] in March on charges of attempting to overthrow the government and establish military rule. Also in March, Turkish police detained 20 people in connection with the plot, and Turkish prosecutors charged [JURIST reports] an army general and a state prosecutor with belonging to Ergenekon and plotting to overthrow the AKP. The Ergenekon investigation has been criticized as an attempt by the AKP to silence the opposition and impose Islamic principles [JURIST report] on secular Turkey. Trials against the Ergenekon group started [JURIST report] two years ago, and nearly 200 people have been charged in connection with it.

Defendants' unlawful intrusions into Mr. Afifi's life—initiated as a result of his heritage, lawful associations, and disclosed political views—create an objective chill on Mr. Afifi's First Amendment activities. In addition to the fear Mr. Afifi now feels when expressing his political views and maintaining certain lawful associations, Defendants' actions have deterred others from associating with him, prospective employers most notably. The existence—even if now in the past—of an intensive surveillance operation by Defendants of Mr. Afifi communicate to persons and organizations that Mr. Afifi is at least suspect if not a threat to the physical security of those in my proximity.

The use of GPS technology and other surveillance devices [JURIST news archive] by law enforcement agents has been a controversial issue in the US, with courts across the country coming to divergent conclusions. In December, the DC District Court declined to rehear en banc [JURIST report] a bid by the DOJ to overturn a decision that prevents the government from using GPS technology to track suspects without a warrant. A Pennsylvania appeals court allowed use of evidence obtained with GPS technology [JURIST report] in December. In September, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that at times the government might need a warrant to obtain cell phone data [JURIST report] to track a person's location. Last year, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that, even if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-issued electronic devices, that an employer's search of private text messages does not violate [JURIST report] the Fourth Amendment so long as the search is not excessive and is pursuant to a legitimate work-related purpose.

On Saturday, the UN Security Council voted unanimously [press release] to impose sanctions [JURIST report] on Gaddafi, marking the first unanimous referral to the ICC in UN history. Resolution 1970 also received support from Libya's delegation itself, which renounced Gaddafi on Friday [Reuters report]. The UN General Assembly voted Tuesday to suspend Libya [JURIST report] from the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] in response to the violent suppression of peaceful protesters by forces loyal to Gaddafi. According to a statement issued by the court Monday, the ICC will not grant immunity [JURIST report] to any person perpetrating crimes against humanity in Libya.

Last month, a Pakistani court indicted [JURIST report] police guard Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, accused of assassinating [JURIST report] liberal politician and governor of Pakistan's Punjab province Salman Taseer for opposing the nation's blasphemy law. Controversy surrounding Pakistan's blasphemy law has recently been reignited over the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad [JURIST news archive] during an argument with other women in her village last year. Tasseer had spoken in Bibi's defense. In December, the Lahore High Court (LHC) [official website] ordered a stay against any amendments to Pakistan's blasphemy laws pending further proceedings. The blasphemy laws were introduced in 1986 as a way of protecting Muslim beliefs from insults. In response to the repeated calls for repeal, Pakistani Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti has said the laws may be amended to prevent misuse, but they will not be repealed. Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch [JURIST report], as well as LHC advocate Saroop Ijaz [JURIST op-ed] have called for the laws to be repealed.

The Government has requested that the court's judgment in the "Greens and MT" case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - the highest tier of the ECHR. If the Grand Chamber agrees to the referral, they will look again at the judgment and issue their opinion. The basis of the Government's referral request is that we believe that the court should look again at the principles in "Hirst" which outlaws a blanket ban on prisoners voting, particularly given the recent debate in the House of Commons. The referral request also points out the need for clarity in the ECHR's case law in this area.

The recent disagreement [BBC report] with the ECHR invoked outrage in the UK and generated proposals for a British Bill of Rights by various members of the British government. Last week, former UK Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf warned that a British Bill of Rights would conflict [JURIST report] with the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF], which the UK has incorporated into its law. While the government has not stated an intention to withdraw from the convention, Woolf has warned that continued adherence to the convention combined with the creation of a British Bill of Rights would create complications for judges in determining which to follow and further the existing conflict between the UK and the ECHR. The UK currently incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into its law, but the ECHR has the final interpretation. Also in February, UK think tank Policy Exchange [think tank website] called for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR [text, PDF; JURIST report] in favor of a domestic high court. The report proposes that the UK to try to negotiate reforms with the court to limit its jurisdiction, and, if unsuccessful, suggests that the UK consider withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the ECHR altogether. Following, the Supreme Court in London would be the final appellate court for human rights law, with no right to appeal to the ECHR.