In March 2010, an international group of human rights lawyers petitioned the UN group [JURIST report] to condemn Gao's detention. Two weeks later, Gao spoke to a reporter [JURIST report] and verified that he was alive and living in China's Shanxi province after being missing for more than a year. Gao stated that he was released from detention, but another Chinese human rights lawyer stated that Gao still appeared to be under some form of restraint in his interview. In January 2010, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman indicated that Gao was "where he should be" [JURIST report] and that keeping him in custody comported with the law. Gao drew international attention in September 2007 when he wrote a letter [JURIST report] to the US Congress requesting assistance in improving human rights in China. Gao, who has also defended Christians and coal miners in China, claimed that he was tortured after his arrest in 2007. Gao was originally part of the Chinese Communist Party and handled prominent cases involving the outlawed Falun Gong movement [Falun Dafa website], but fell into disfavor with the government in 2006 when he was convicted of subversion [JURIST report] and placed under house arrest. China has long received criticism [JURIST news archive] from watchdog groups for its treatment of rights activists such as Gao.

[T]his case is about whether the government can turn my act of speaking into the vehicle by which my political opponents benefit with direct government subsidies. ... This Court ... recognized that when the government reaches into a campaign and attempts to manipulate campaign financing in order to basically effectuate the outcome, that constitutes an illegitimate governmental purpose. ... The purpose of this law is to limit spending in elections and to level the playing field. ... [The law] is entirely structured to create disincentives ... on people speaking of engaging in political activity more than the government preferred.

In CSX Transportation v. McBride [oral arguments transcript], the court heard arguments on 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. Counsel for the petitioner argued that FELA was intended to follow the ordinary common law procedural approaches in respect to proximate cause:

Just five years after the enactment of FELA, the Court declared that it was obvious that the statute contained a proximate cause requirement. Proximate cause ... is an element of the cause of action. ... So proximate cause has been regarded as an essential component of the tort law. And that being so, FELA creates a Federal cause of action for negligence, it creates a Federal tort law. A fundamental principle of statutory interpretation ... [is] that when Congress creates a Federal tort, it means to adopt the general background of tort law.

Several trials and appeals have delayed criminal prosecution of Enron executives over the years. Of all the those indicted, three received prison sentences, and two, including Shelby, have been given probation sentences. One executive was acquitted when his charges were dismissed at trial. In 2008, a judge ordered [JURIST report] that three of Enron's CEO's be retried after an appeals court refused to dismiss charges [JURIST report] against the men. In 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] reversed the convictions [JURIST report] of four former Merrill Lynch [corporate website] executives found guilty in connection with an Enron. All of the Enron defendants were acquitted on various charges in 2005, but the jury failed to reach a verdict on all counts, and prosecutors later re-indicted [JURIST reports] the defendants.

This decision marks the second time Kosovo's highest court has declared circumstances surrounding the country's president unconstitutional since the country declared its independence from Serbia [JURIST report] three years ago. Then-president Fatmir Sejdiu resigned [press release] six months ago following a decision [press release] by the Constitutional Court that his dual roles as president and head of the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) violated the constitution [JURIST report]. The fledgling country also remains embroiled in several war crimes proceedings stemming from the 1998-1999 Kosovo war [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], including the recent demand [JURIST report] by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) [official website] that Albania and Kosovo investigate and prosecute alleged incidents of organ trafficking, inhuman treatment and other crimes by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) [official website].

The investigation into al-Nashiri's allegations of the secret prison's existence and his abuse there began soon after former Polish prime minister Leszek Miller denied any knowledge of a secret CIA prison [JURIST report] in Poland. His denial followed confirmation by a former CIA agent that the agency tortured [Spiegel report] al-Nashiri in 2002 at a secret prison located in Poland. According to the agent, al-Nashiri was stripped naked and hooded before a gun and a drill were held close to his head. In addition to denying the existence of the prisons, Miller also stated that he believes claims of the prisons will jeopardize the safety of Polish citizens and members of the military currently serving in Afghanistan. Former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski has also denied the existence of the prisons. Both he and Miller maintain that they will not discuss the allegations of torture until the completion of an investigation into Poland's role in the US prisoner rendition [JURIST news archive] program. The original investigation into the existence of the CIA-operated prison was launched by the Polish government [JURIST report] in September 2008.

Countries that insist on using the death penalty continue to claim that they use it only in accordance with international law. But most of their actions blatantly contradict these claims.

In reality, many of these countries use the death penalty as a convenient way of getting rid of troublesome people and showing that authorities are tough on crime. It is often imposed after unfair trials and based on confessions extracted through torture. It is often used against political opponents, poor people, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. It is sometimes even used against people who allegedly committed crimes when they were under 18 or who have significant mental impairments.

This is the second year in a row that the number of executions has decreased [JURIST report]. The 110 executions carried out in the US in 2010 represented only approximately a third as many as were being carried out in the mid 1990s, and Illinois became the sixteenth state to abolish the death penalty [JURIST report] in March. Illinois' death penalty ban is set to go into effect in July. Also this year, China dropped the death penalty [JURIST report] for 13 non-violent crimes in February, including teaching crime-committing methods and robbing ancients ruins. In October, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] China, Iran and the US to abolish the death penalty [press release].

Also Monday, the court denied certiorari [order list, PDF] without comment in the Troy Anthony Davis [defense website; JURIST news archive] appeal, allowing Georgia to execute Davis for a murder committed over 20 years ago. One commentator suggested [SCOTUSblog report] that justices might have believed Davis had gotten what he wanted with a federal court review of his case, and that that decision was sufficient to resolve the matter. Last August, the US Supreme Court took the rare step of granting his original writ of habeas corpus [JURIST report] after Davis had exhausted his state remedies under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [text] and instructed the district court to examine new findings of fact in the case. The US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia [official website] then heard the habeas petition, but the court sided against Davis saying that he failed to prove his innocence. Davis was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering an off-duty Savannah, Georgia, police officer on the night of August 19, 1989. According to his defense lawyers, key witnesses against Davis have recanted their testimony, and others say another person has since confessed to the killing.

Kaing unexpectedly asked to be released [JURIST report] at the close of his trial in November 2009. His request was a complete departure from his previous conduct, as he had cooperated with the trial and repeatedly apologized to his victims and their families, mitigating conduct that earned him a reduced sentence from the 40 years prosecutors originally sought. His lawyers took different approaches in their closing remarks, with one stating that his client was not guilty and the other asking for clemency. In March 2009, Kaing accepted responsibility and apologized [JURIST report] for his conduct at the detention facility. He is the first of eight ex-Khmer Rouge officials expected to be tried before the ECCC. In April, the pre-trial chamber of the ECCC dismissed appeals by three other former Khmer Rouge officials [JURIST report] to block the extension of their provision detention. The three prisoners, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan, were arrested in November 2007 and face charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, torture and religious persecution.

The election announcement comes a week after an overwhelming majority of Egyptians voted to approve several constitutional amendments [JURIST report] in a national referendum. The majority approval is considered by some to be a milestone [JURIST comment] for Egypt during its transition to a democratic society following the national uprising [JURIST news archive] against Mubarak. Both the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood supported the amendments to the Egyptian Constitution [text], which include lowering the presidential term limit and mandating new criteria for potential presidential candidates.