Chile became the first country to implement network neutrality laws when the Chilean Parliament passed the laws in July 2010. In April, the US House of Representatives voted to overturn regulations [JURIST report] aimed at preserving the Internet as a free and open platform of communication after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website] approved the regulations last year [JURIST report], which prevent Internet providers from selectively blocking web access. Just days before, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] granted a motion by the FCC to dismiss [JURIST report] a challenge to the new net neutrality rules. The court dismissed the appeal for improper timing because the challenged rulemaking document has yet to be published in the Federal Register [official website]. The challenges were filed by Verizon and MetroPCS [JURIST reports] in January out of concern over the broad authority the regulations would grant to the FCC. A previous court ruling found that the FCC lacks the power to enforce net neutrality [JURIST report]. Net neutrality is thought by supporters to be essential to the goal of an open flow of information over the Internet regardless of the amount of revenue generated by the information.

The Ivory Coast announced it would establish a commission [JURIST report] earlier this month, to investigate alleged crimes committed as a result of the disputed presidential elections last November. Thsi investigation may take up to two years [Reuters Africa]. An official for the International Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation [JURIST report] into Ouattara and his forces' continuing attacks against supporters of Gbagbo earlier this month. In April, Human Rights Watch urged Ouattara to conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged atrocities carried out by his forces in its attempts to secure the presidency. According to the report, the pro-Ouattara forces, known as the Republican Forces of the Ivory Coast, killed more than 100 civilians, raped at least 20 supporters of Gbagbo and burned at least 10 villages in March. Also in April, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] reported the deaths of at least 800 civilians [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast town of Duekoue as a result of intercommunal violence.

It is extremely disappointing to see the South Carolina state legislature following in these ill-fated footsteps by passing this legislation that will sacrifice citizens’ safety, cost the state an untold amount in taxpayer dollars and perpetuate bigotry. If Gov. Haley signs this legislation, SPLC will join our counterparts in fighting this unconstitutional and racist law to protect the civil rights of every South Carolinian.

Several other state legislatures have acted recently to implement so-called "Arizona style" immigration laws. The North Carolina House of Representatives [official website] voted [JURIST report] in June to pass a bill [HB 36 text, PDF; materials] requiring all employers with 25 or more employees to check the immigration status of their hires using the E-Verify system. In April, the Indiana House of Representatives [official website] voted [JURIST report] 64-32 to approve a bill [Amended SB 590 text; materials] considered to be a "watered-down" version of the Arizona immigration bill [JURIST news archive]. Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah [JURIST reports] have all approved Arizona-style immigration bills within the past year. In May, the US Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] an Arizona law requiring employers to utilize the E-Verify system, finding that it was not preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act [text] and thus not a violation of the Supremacy Clause [text]. This decision could have an impact on lawsuits challenging legislation in other states.

We ask to recognise that in the process of opening a criminal case against Ms Tymoshenko, during the investigation of criminal charges there has been a violation of sub-paragraph C of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which suggests that a person can be detained only given sufficient evidence and given that a suspicion that a person committed a crime is well grounded. ... I would like to remind you that on 24 May the Prosecutor General's Office detained Tymoshenko, respectively, it detained her without sufficient reason because the case against her was opened on fanciful charges. It is precisely this that we would like the European Court of Human Rights to rule on.

In May, the PGO charged Tymoshenko [JURIST report] under Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine [text] with abuse of office [press release, in Ukrainian] in connection with signing gas import contracts with Russia. In Feburary, the PGO combined two separate criminal cases [JURIST report] against her and concluded the pre-trial investigation. The combined cases against Tymoshenko include charges initiated in December for allegedly misappropriating state funds during her time as prime minister from 2007-2010 and new charges in January alleging that she abused her authority and exceeded her official duties [JURIST reports] while in office by purchasing "1000 Opel Combo" medical vans at a 20 percent mark-up. Tymoshenko said the vans were successful in providing medical services to rural villages. The current combined case against her is not the first time she has been prosecuted. Last May, prosecutors reopened a separate criminal investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that Tymoshenko attempted to bribe Supreme Court judges. Tymoshenko's government was dissolved in March 2010 after she narrowly lost the presidential election to Yanukovych. Tymoshenko had alleged that widespread voter fraud allowed Yanukovych to win the election.

Judge Harry Edwards dissented over the dismissal of the plaintiffs' ATS claims. He said, "[i]t is ironic that, under the majority's approach, United States officials who torture a foreign national in a foreign country are not subject to suit in an action brought under section 1350, whereas foreign officials who commit official torture in a foreign country may be sued under section 1350." Rumsfeld has been the target of a number of lawsuits over alleged unlawful detention and torture of suspected terrorists and US enemies. Earlier this month, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website] appealed a case over two Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees, Yasser Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Salah Al-Salami of Yemen, who committed suicide while in detention in 2006, claiming the US and 24 government officials including Rumsfeld, are responsible for their arbitrary detention, torture, and deaths. Also this month, US citizen and convicted terrorist Jose Padilla [JURIST news archive], represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [official website], appealed [JURIST report] a lawsuit against government officials, including Rumsfeld, over his detention in a military prison arguing that he has a valid Bivens action. Rumsfeld has also faced possible criminal charges in Europe, when, in 2007, a war crimes complaint was filed against him [JURIST report] in Germany for his involvement in detainee treatment. The case was later dismissed [JURIST report].

I am also concerned that the overall security situation in Sudan is deteriorating at an alarming rate, with severe humanitarian consequences. Civilians are increasingly bearing the brunt of the volatile and uncertain political climate. The conflict has also prevented sowing at the beginning of the agricultural season which will cause food shortages. We could be facing a worst case scenario, with millions of civilians in both North and South Sudan in need of protection and critical humanitarian assistance.

South Kordofan is a state in the center of Sudan, and has been a disputed territory between Sudan and South Sudan, due to its oil reserves. South Sudan is scheduled to become independent next month and its forces, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), have held South Kordofan since the 2005 peace deal that stifled Sudan's civil war. Sudan's army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), took over Abyei, a district in the state in May, causing a rebuke and demand for withdrawal [JURIST reports] by the UN. The UN confirmed reports of bombing and shelling in and around Abyei by the SAF, as well as widespread looting and burning of houses. Aid workers estimate 40,000 people have fled the area [BBC report]. While the UN has said that attacks on its peacekeepers amount to war crimes under international law, both the UN and the US have called on the northern troops to withdraw from Abyei. From the northern capital of Khartoum President Omar al-Bashir [BBC profile; ICC case materials; JURIST news archive] has stated he will not withdraw troops from the region and insisted that the area belongs to the north. An International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] case is open against al-Bashir and several nations [China; Malaysia; Djibouti; Kenya; Chad JURIST reports] have been urged to arrest him on sight.

While Australian law substantially complies with the obligations in the Convention, the Government believes there is more we can do to ensure Australia is in the best position to tackle cyber threats that confront us, both domestically and internationally. The increasing cyber threat means that no nation alone can effectively overcome this problem and international cooperation is essential. Australia must have appropriate arrangements domestically and internationally to be in the best possible position to fight cybercrime and cyber security threats.

Several countries have attempted to bolster cymbercrime security enforcement in recent years. In early June, US authorities announced that they are investigating claims by Google [JURIST report] that hundreds of personal Gmail accounts were breached by hackers in China. In November 2009, the Iranian government announced the establishment of a new police unit [JURIST report] to fight Internet crime, though opposition leaders said its true purpose was to crack down on protesters and voices of dissent, who rely on the Internet to get their message out. The Finnish legislature passed the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media Act [unofficial translation, PDF] in December 2008 that now provides a remedy to victims of Internet crime [JURIST report], but it was not in effect at the time of an incident of Internet pedophilia. The US Senate ratified [JURIST report] the COE Convention on Cybercrime, which is intended to improve information- and evidence-sharing between national governments to prevent crimes on the Internet, in August 2006.

On Monday of this week, Ben Ali and his wife were convicted in absentia and sentenced to 35 years in prison on charges of theft and unlawful possession of money and jewelry after only an hours-long trial that began that morning [JURIST reports]. The two were also charged with illegal possession of drugs and weapons, but the verdict for those charges would not be announced until June 30. Ben Ali said he was "duped" into leaving [AFP report] the capital Tunis, according to a statement released through his lawyer. He said that he was trying to get his family out of the country after assassination threats and that the plane left him in Saudi Arabia despite orders to wait for him. Ben Ali has denied the charges against him [JURIST report] more of which stem from allegations he authorized the use of force against protesters during the protests, resulting in more than 200 deaths.

The National Safety Courts, special military tribunals, were instituted in mid-March under King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa's [official profile] three-month state of emergency [JURIST report] and have been internationally criticized, most recently [JURIST report] by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. The court sentenced nine citizens [JURIST report] to 20 years in prison for kidnapping a police officer in May. In April, the court handed the death sentence to four protesters, a rarity in Bahrain, and upheld the sentences [JURIST reports] for two of the men, who were accused of murdering police officers. All of the charges levied in the National Safety Court have been disputed by Bahraini citizens and international rights organizations. In an effort to quiet protests that have been ongoing since March, last week, the Justice Ministry declared they would take action to lift the ban [JURIST report] on the leading opposition party, the National Democratic Action Society [website]. The leftist opposition party, known as Waad and aligned with the largest Shi'ite opposition group, was shut down in April during the pro-democracy protests [JURIST report].

PANYNJ is also battling a lawsuit related to a separate terror attack. In June, PANYNJ argued in an appeal [case summary, PDF; JURIST report] before the New York Court of Appeals [official website] that they were not liable for negligence in the 1993 WTC attacks [FBI backgrounger; BBC backgrounder]. The Port Authority seeks to overturn the 2008 decision [text] that upheld a 2005 jury verdict [JURIST report] apportioning 68 percent of the fault to the Port Authority and 32 percent to the terrorists who committed the attack. The 1993 bombing of the WTC by Islamic radicals killed six and injured 1,000 through a car bomb placed in the basement parking garage. Five men were captured and sentenced to life in prison for the attack. After the bombing, 648 plaintiffs filed 174 negligence actions against the Port Authority for "alleged breach of its proprietary duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition." Negligence was assessed against the Port Authority after documents revealed that the WTC garage had been ignoring safety fears since 1984. The Port Authority police superintendent, at the time, stated the parking areas "[we]re accessible to the public and are highly susceptible to car bombings."

The SEC alleges that J.P. Morgan structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) without informing investors that a hedge fund helped select the assets in the CDO portfolio and had a short position in more than half of those assets. As a result, the hedge fund was poised to benefit if the CDO assets it was selecting for the portfolio defaulted.

In July 2010, Goldman Sachs [corporate website; JURIST news archive] agreed to a $550 million settlement [text, PDF] with the SEC to resolve charges [JURIST report] that they marketed a subprime mortgage product and made misleading statements and omissions to investors in early 2007. Of the $550 million settlement, $300 million will be paid to the US Treasury and $250 million will be distributed to harmed investors. The penalty was the largest against a financial company in SEC history. In May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings [corporate website] filed suit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] against JPMorgan for allegedly "siphoning" off billions of dollars in "critically-needed" assets days before the investment bank filed for a record-breaking bankruptcy.

The terms of settlement bring a measure of justice to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. The settlement isn't perfect. I do not think it compensates all for all the losses sustained, but I do think it is fair and it is reasonable. That is what matters—a fair resolution has been achieved. I am convinced that it is the best settlement possible. I am convinced also that if this settlement failed, there would be many more years of litigation with little possibility of a more favorable resolution.

In October 2010, Hogan extended the deadline [JURIST report] for Congress to approve the $3.4 billion settlement concerning the US government's alleged mismanagement of funds [DOI materials] held in trust for American Indian landowners. Hogan set a new deadline for January 7, 2011, reasoning that this would allow the lame-duck session of Congress a final chance to approve the settlement. This is the seventh time an extension has been granted since the settlement was agreed upon [JURIST report] in December 2009. The House of Representatives has twice approved the settlement, but the US Senate, which will reconvene on November 15, has yet to vote on the issue. Hogan urged Congress to accept the settlement and meet the January extension, warning that costly litigation for both parties would follow further delay. The plaintiffs had rejected [JURIST report] a $7 billion settlement offer in 2007.