The Jicarilla Apache Nation has sued the government for mismanaging millions of dollars of its trust monies. No trustee in this situation, including the government, is entitled to withhold the legal advice that it has received about managing the beneficiary's money. The beneficiary is entitled to see that legal advice, so that it can determine whether the trustee followed the advice.

Last year, the UK Parliament [official website] approved legislation [JURIST report] authorizing the suspension of Internet service for those who repeatedly download copyrighted material illegally. The act also received Royal Assent [text] and is now law. It calls on ISPs to block download sites, reduce a user's broadband speeds and ultimately shut down a user's Internet access in order to prevent piracy of copyrighted materials. The bill, known as a three-strikes law, imposes stricter penalties on repeat digital offenders than had previously existed, and has received a great deal of public criticism. Despite the controversy over the legislation, MPs who support it say that it is a necessary step to protect the creators of digital content. In November, UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced that Britain's intellectual property laws would undergo a review [JURIST report] with an eye towards modernization, in an effort to encourage innovation and small business. Cameron suggested that the law may be reformed in order to allow for increased use of copyright material without the owner's permission. The announcement, seen as an attempt to restore balance after the controversial DEA, was cheered by Internet freedom campaigners and small businesses alike.

There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.

Last June, the Supreme Court of India ordered the central government and seven state governments to explain the steps they have taken to reduce honor killings [JURIST report]. The order came in response to a petition filed by Shakti Vahini [advocacy website], a non-governmental human rights organization seeking the implementation of stricter laws against the perpetrators of honor killings.

The continued operation of Guantanamo Bay remains controversial. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] criticized US President Barack Obama in January for failing to shut down the facility, as Obama's stated desire to close the Guantanamo prison [JURIST reports] has faced heavy opposition in Congress. Earlier in January, Obama signed a bill barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees [JURIST report] to the US for trial. The legislation authorized funding for defense interests abroad, military construction and national security-related energy programs and barred the use of funds to transfer detainees into the US and limited funds available for transfers to foreign countries. The number of detainees at Guantanamo has been significantly reduced as the administration continues to transfer detainees to a growing list of countries including Germany, Italy, Spain, Maldives, Georgia, Albania, Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Somaliland, Palau, Belgium, Afghanistan and Bermuda [JURIST reports].

Applying ordinary contract principles here would also make little sense because contracts with a sovereign are unique: They do not traditionally confer a right of action for damages to enforce compliance. More fundamentally, Sossamon's implied-contract remedy cannot be squared with the rule that a sovereign immunity waiver must be expressly and unequivocally stated in the relevant statute's text.

The court's ruling affirms the decision [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] that Sossamon was barred from suing for monetary damages because the language in RLUIPA did not provide clear notice to Texas that it was waiving its rights to sovereign immunity from monetary damages. The court heard oral arguments [oral argument transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in the case last year. At oral arguments counsel for Sossamon argued that damages were an appropriate remedy. Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for Texas argued that the ambiguous phrase "appropriate relief" does not permit damages.

Last month, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] sentenced former Murambi Commune mayor Jean-Baptiste Gatete to life in prison [JURIST report] after finding him guilty of committing genocide. In January, the ICTR began trying former Rwandan military official Idelphonse Nizeyimana and Germany started trying former mayor Onesphore Rwabukombe [JURIST reports]. Both men are accused of committing war crimes and genocide against Tutsis during the civil war. Belgium has previously tried and convicted four people in connection with the Rwandan genocide. In 2007, a Belgian court convicted former military official Bernard Ntuyahaga of premeditated [JURIST report] homicide for killing 10 Belgian peacekeepers during the conflict.

Post-conflict amnesties cannot be granted to prevent prosecution of egregious human rights violations, including through pardons or the withdrawal of criminal charges. Transitional justice, and criminal justice, should work in a complementary fashion. In this regard, there are a number of cases currently pending in Nepal, for which police investigations, and judicial proceedings, should continue regardless of the fact the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms remains a priority. It is deeply troubling that to date in Nepal no-one has been held accountable for crimes committed during the conflict. Criminal investigations have not moved forward, some perpetrators have even been promoted, and little action has been taken to address and redress the grievance of the victims.

The decade-long Maoist guerrilla insurgency that left more than 13,000 people dead ended [JURIST report] in late 2006 when the Nepalese government signed a peace agreement that established the CA. In November, the CA announced it will finish drafting a new constitution [JURIST report] within 18 months. Last May, the CA voted to abolish the monarchy [JURIST report], giving King Gyanendera 15 days to abandon his royal palace, which cleared the way for Maoists to serve in government. As part of the peace accord, the CA was elected [JURIST report] in April 2008, an organization dominated by members of the Communist Party of Nepal - Maoists (CPN-M) [party website].