The Court admits that the applicant's case may raise a certain suspicion as to the real intent of the authorities, and that this state of suspicion might be sufficient for the domestic courts to refuse extradition, deny legal assistance, issue injunctions against the Russian Government, make pecuniary awards, etc. However, it is not sufficient for this Court to conclude that the whole legal machinery of the respondent State in the present case was ab intio misused, that from the beginning to the end the authorities were acting with bad faith and in blatant disregard of the Convention. This is a very serious claim which requires an incontrovertible and direct proof. Such proof... is absent from the case under examination.

Last week, a Moscow court upheld the second fraud convictions [JURIST report] against Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev [defense website; JURIST news archive] but reduced their eight-year sentences to seven years. The two men, already serving a sentence handed down in 2005 for fraud and tax evasion, were convicted in December of embezzling from their company, Yukos Oil, and sentenced [JURIST reports] to an additional eight years. They appealed, alleging, among other things, that Judge Viktor Danilkin did not write the verdict [JURIST reports] and that he was coerced into reading it. Khodorkovsky vehemently criticized [press release] the ruling as flying in the face of the rule of law. The two men can now expect to be released in 2016 instead of 2017. The December verdict drew harsh international criticism [JURIST report], including from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile], who said [press release] that the ruling "raises serious questions about selective prosecution." The Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs [official website, in Russian] dismissed critics, saying [press release, in Russian] that "[a]ttempts to exert pressure on the court are unacceptable."

Last month, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that Mohammed and four others would be tried by a military commission [JURIST report] after the Obama administration abandoned attempts to have the 9/11 suspects tried in civilian courts. Holder had wanted the accused be tried before a federal civilian court [JURIST report] but referred the cases to the DOD after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST report] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US. In March 2010, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] called on the Obama administration to hold civilian trials [JURIST report] for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists saying that the military commissions system is fatally flawed and cannot be reformed. Earlier that month, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama [JURIST report] to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court.

Serbian authorities captured [ICTY press release] Mladic last week, ending a 16-year manhunt [JURIST report] for the former general colonel and commander of the army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mladic was one of the two remaining at-large war criminals sought by the ICTY, along with Goran Hadzic. Mladic faces charges [amended indictment, PDF] of genocide and crimes against humanity, including murder, political persecution, forcible transfer and deportations, cruel treatment and the taking of peacekeepers as hostages. He is most infamous for ordering the slaughter of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the massacre of Srebrenica during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archives].

Ashcroft appealed the decision [JURIST report] of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that absolute and qualified [AELE backgrounders] immunity do not shield him from the suit. During oral arguments [JURIST report], counsel for Ashcroft argued that the appellate court's ruling is contrary to precedent that states that intent plays no role in finding that absolute immunity applies to traditional prosecutorial functions, such as issuing material witness warrants. He also argued that, regardless of the finding on absolute immunity, qualified immunity protects officials unless their actions violate constitutional rights, which Ashcroft argues does not occur by using a material witness warrant in a pretextual manner. Counsel for respondent, an American citizen who was detained pursuant to a material witness warrant later found to be factually inaccurate, Al-Kidd argued that qualified immunity does not apply because the detention violated al-Kidd's Fourth Amendment [text] rights. He further argues that absolute immunity does not protect those who would use the material witness warrant to investigate an individual, and that the attorney general should not be permitted to claim greater immunity than the FBI agents that carried out his instructions.

[W]e agree that deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists is not the appropriate standard under §271(b). We nevertheless affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the evidence in this case was plainly sufficient to support a finding of Pentalpha’s knowledge under the doctrine of willful blindness.

SEB owns a patent for a deep fryer. In 1997, Pentalpha, a subsidiary of Global-Tech Appliances, developed and manufactured a deep fryer that copied features of SEB's deep fryer. In 1999, SEB sued Global-Tech for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The jury found Global-Tech liable for direct and active inducement of patent infringement, and Global-Tech appealed.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Black v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] in which Black was seeking to have his remaining conviction overturned. Black was originally convicted on two counts of fraud and a third count of obstruction of justice after a jury acquitted him and his co-defendants of 15 other fraud counts. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded [JURIST report] the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] to apply a different standard for the two fraud counts. The Seventh Circuit vacated [JURIST report] the conviction for the fraud counts but left intact the obstruction of justice claim. Black argued that in applying the incorrect standard to the fraud counts had created error that should overturn his conviction on the remaining count because of the relation of the charges. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the decision to deny certiorari. Black said that he was not surprised [Canadian Business report] that the Supreme Court did not take another look at his case.

The problem of tainted Chinese milk is not subsiding, despite Chinese government promises to the contrary and attempts at reform [JURIST report]. Last September, police in China's Shanxi province in arrested seven individuals [JURIST report], including the executive of a dairy company, after that company's powdered milk was found to contain melamine. In July 2010, Chinese authorities discovered 64 tons of raw dairy materials [Xinhua report] contaminated with melamine in Qinghai province. In February, Chinese police arrested three individuals [JURIST report] for their roles in the 2008 tainted milk scandal. Two other individuals were executed [JURIST report] in November 2009 after being convicted of endangering public safety and selling toxic food.

Last month, Cambodia petitioned the court [JURIST report] requesting clarification of the 1962 order to "peacefully and definitely settle the boundary problem between [Cambodia and Thailand] in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear." Parts of the Cambodia-Thailand border have never been formally demarcated, which has led to border disputes [BBC report]. In response to the latest border clash [JURIST report], UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website; JURIST news archive] stressed that the dispute could not be resolved through military force [statement] and urged both sides to continue working towards a ceasefire.