In October, the French Constitutional Council [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the ban conforms with the Constitution. The bill was approved by the National Assembly in July and by the Senate [JURIST reports] in September. Legislation banning the use of Islamic burqas has been a point of contention recently in many European countries. In October, Dutch politician Geert Wilders [personal website, in Dutch] said that the Netherlands will ban the burqa [JURIST report] as part of the government's plan to form a minority coalition. In August, Austria's conservative Freedom Party [official website, in German] called for a special vote [JURIST report] on whether to ban face veils and the construction of minarets, two of the most visible symbols of the Islamic faith. In July, Spain's lower house of parliament rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to ban the burqa and other full face veils by a vote of 183 to 162 with 2 abstaining.

The accused leader of the terrorist group, Zakaria Amara, pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in 2009 to charges of planning to bomb three targets in Ontario. The same month, another member of the group, Ali Mohamed Dirie, was sentenced to seven years in prison [JURIST report] for his part in the plot, while another, Saad Gaya, pleaded guilty. In September, the first of the group to plead guilty, Saad Khalid, was sentenced to 14 years in prison [JURIST report], though the Canadian government is seeking to alter that sentence for time already served. The first of the suspects to be convicted under Canada's post-9/11 terrorism law was sentenced and released [JURIST reports] in May, with the court citing time served. The Toronto 18 were arrested [JURIST report] in 2006.

Had it been established that the Accused understood and agreed with the representations of the actions of his Counsel ... then there would have been no error in concluding that the Accused has forfeited his opportunity to file a final trial brief. ... However, in the face of the silence of the Accused, ... the conclusion that the Accused had waived his right to have his final argument considered was an error of fact, which, if uncorrected, could occasion a miscarriage of justice. To rule otherwise would be to disadvantage the uninformed Accused for the actions of his Counsel, which would be unfair, particular as there are other means by which the Trial Chamber can sanction Counsel without affecting the Accused's fundamental rights.

Taylor is charged with 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and has denied all allegations [JURIST report] against him. Charges include [indictment, PDF] murder, rape, sexual slavery and acts of terrorism, all stemming from from a "campaign to terrorize the civilian population" of Sierra Leone. Taylor's defense lawyers, who began presenting their case [JURIST report] in July 2009, have claimed that he could not have commanded rebel forces in Sierra Leone while acting as the president of Liberia. His trial continued after the court denied his motion for acquittal [JURIST report] in May 2009. Although Taylor's trial is coming to an end, prosecutors previously expressed concern that the defense's list of 256 witnesses could make the trial last up to four additional years [JURIST report].

South Dakota's proposed law is just one of many new laws regulating abortion that have appeared at both the state and federal levels in recent months. In late February, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill [JURIST report] that would restrict abortions after the 20-week time point. Nebraska had passed a similar bill [JURIST report] in April 2010. Earlier last month, the US House of Representatives proposed a budget which would deny all funding to Planned Parenthood [Boston Globe report]. In May 2010, the Oklahoma Senate passed a bill [JURIST report] requiring women seeking an abortion to complete a questionnaire, including their reasons for seeking the abortion. Oklahoma's governor vetoed that bill, but both chambers of the state legislature voted to override the veto [JURIST report].

Divjak's arrest is part of Serbian officials' ongoing effort to apprehend those responsible for the atrocities that occurred in the region during the 1992-95 civil war. Last month, French authorities arrested [JURIST report] Milorad Momic, a suspected former member of the Serbian paramilitary group, the Scorpions [JURIST news archive], which took part in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive] in Bosnia, where a total of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed. Since his arrest, both Croatian and Serbian officials have requested his extradition [JURIST report] to face trial for war crimes charges filed against him in each country. Suspected BiH war criminal Dragan Crnogorac was arrested [JURIST report] in November in connection with the Srebrenica massacre. In August, the Court of BiH [official website] issued genocide charges [JURIST report] against four former Bosnian Serb soldiers, accusing them of participating in the murder of more than 800 Bosnian Muslims during the massacre.

In the time since [the litigation was filed], the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the Constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible.

The health care reform law is the subject of numerous legal challenges across the country. There are currently cases in 28 states challenging the provisions of the PPACA and the lower court rulings on issues surrounding the legislation have been mixed. Last month, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli [official website] filed a petition [JURIST report] for a writ of certiorari [text, PDF] with the US Supreme Court [official website] asking the court to rule on the constitutionality of the law on an expedited basis, before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] rules on the issue. In January, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia [official website] 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 as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax.