Israeli outposts in the West Bank are illegal under Israeli and international law. Last year, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank "illegal" [JURIST report]. The statement came two weeks after Israel announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], where Palestinians hope to establish the capital of their future state. Ban said, "the world has condemned Israel's settlement expansion plans in East Jerusalem. Let us be clear, all settlement activities [are] illegal anywhere in Occupied Territory... I urge all parties to respect sensitives and promote calm. We can and must find a way for Jerusalem to emerge from negotiations as the capital of two states with arrangements for holy sites acceptable to all." Also last year, Israel began rerouting a segment of its West Bank security barrier [official website; JURIST news archive] shifting the controversial barrier's path several hundred yards west [JURIST report] of its current location to return more than 800,000 square yards of land to Palestinian farmers. The move comes more than two years after the Israeli Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that the government must change the route because it excessively encroached on Palestinian territory and infringed on residents' rights to access fields and orchards blocked by the barrier.

If the possibility exists that information will be or has been obtained through the mistreatment of detainees, the negative consequences may include any potential adverse effects on national security if the fact of the agency seeking or accepting information in those circumstances were to be publicly revealed. For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism.

The UK Supreme Court [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF] in July that secret service organizations cannot withhold evidence [JURIST report] from opposing parties nor conduct closed trials. The British government, on orders from UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website], is engaged in an ongoing investigation [JURIST report] into claims that government agents were complicit in the torture of terrorism suspects held overseas. The British government issued a new set of regulations [text, PDF] regarding the use of information obtained via torture in July 2010 shortly after the human rights group Reprieve [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] seeking a review of the country's torture policy. UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) [official website] expressed concern [press release], however, that the country's new regulations may still leave intelligence agents vulnerable [JURIST report] to legal action for human rights crimes committed by others. In March 2009, UK Attorney General Janet Scotland [official profile] said that police would conduct an investigation [statement, PDF; JURIST report] into claims that an agent of the MI5 took part in the allegedly abusive interrogation of former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Binyam Mohamed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], an appellee in the aforementioned UK Supreme Court case.

There is growing support for full marriage equality for same-sex couples as New York [JURIST report] became the most recent state to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] in June, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, as well as the Suquamish and Coquille American Indian tribes [JURIST reports]. However, same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue through the US, despite a recent poll [materials] suggesting support for legalization is growing. In May, Minnesota approved [JURIST report] a referendum amending the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Also, in April, the Indiana Senate [official website] overwhelmingly approved [JURIST report] a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage or any "substantially similar" status, while the Wyoming Senate [official website] in February approved a bill that would void in Wyoming any same-sex marriages or civil unions [JURIST report] performed in other jurisdictions.

Until recently, the historically strained relations between the US and Cuba had shown signs of improvement. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama ordered [JURIST report] the Departments of State, Treasury, and Homeland Security [official websites] to take steps to ease restrictions on travel and remittances [press release] to Cuba. The new regulations, to be promulgated as modifications of the Cuban Assets Control [31 CFR § 515.101 et seq.] and Customs and Border Protection [19 CFR § 122.151 et seq.] regulations, will allow greater travel from the US to Cuba for religious and educational purposes, the transfer of up to $2,000 per year to non-family members in Cuba so long as they are not senior government or Communist Party leaders, and will allow all US international airports to service charter flights between the two countries.

I want to make a statement regarding the plan to arrest me. Clearly this is an act of revenge against a political opponent, but that's not my point. I want to state that I have no intention of committing suicide. They don't need to repeat the tricks they did with Kirpa and Kravchenko. I will never end my life with suicide. Everything I do is my battle against this criminal regime for Ukraine' rightful place in the world. Glory to Ukraine.

There have been several minor developments in Tymoshenko's trial in the past week. Kireyev again refused to recuse himself and Tymoshenko announced that she was allowed to call only two of her proposed witnesses [press releases]. Last month, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) [official website, in Ukrainian] announced that they are launching a criminal investigation [JURIST report] into United Energy Systems of Ukraine (UESU), an energy company at one time headed by Tymoshenko. Last month, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF]. The complaint argued that the charges against Tymoshenko are politically engineered by Yanukovych, Tymoshenko's political rival. ECHR President Jean Paul Costa refused to comment on the complaint [Korrespondent report, in Russian], but said the matter was before the court. 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.

Trials of the participants in the December 19 demonstrations, systematic stifling of the media and freedom of assembly, and the continued persecution of opposition figures, non-governmental organizations and civil society, attest to the serious deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus. ... I call on the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners and civil society activists. Belarus must comply with its OSCE commitments on human rights and fundamental freedoms, which were reaffirmed at the highest level in December 2010, at the OSCE Summit in Astana.

The move to ban assembling seems targeted at silent protests across the country against Lukashenko. Taking part in unsanctioned protests is illegal in Belarus so protests are being organized largely through social media sites where the protestors meet at a previously agreed upon location and, for instance, clap hands. Lukashenko, who has been in power for 17 years since his 1994 election, cracked down on opposition presidential candidates and detained protestors during his bid for a third term in the last election. Earlier this year, Belarus' Minsk City Court delivered suspended sentences [JURIST report] to two former presidential candidates, Uladzimer Nyaklyaeu and Vital Rymasheuski, convicted of organizing protests following the re-election [JURIST reports] of Lukashenko. The two-year suspended sentences [RFE/RL report] were handed down days after former presidential candidate Andrey Sannikau [Free Belarus Now profile] was sentenced to five years [JURIST report]. Hundreds of activists were arrested after protesting Lukashenko's 2006 presidential win, including opposition candidate Alexander Milinkevich [JURIST reports]. While Lukashenko has since sought to improve his country's ties with western nations, the US State Department has historically criticized Belarus' human rights record [JURIST report]. The UN General Assembly Third Committee and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights [JURIST reports] have similarly denounced Belarus for human rights abuses.

Support for same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] is increasing in the US. New York began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, just one month after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) [official website] signed the same-sex marriage legislation [JURIST report] into law. In July, a spokesperson for US President Barack Obama announced that the president espouses repeal [JURIST report] of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive], and advocates the ratification of the Respect for Marriage Act [text], which was introduced by Congressional Democrats [JURIST report] in February to repeal DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." In addition to New York, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, as well as in the Suquamish and Coquille American Indian tribes [JURIST reports].

The Alabama immigration legislation, which was signed into law [JURIST report] by Governor Robert Bentley [official website] in June, is one of the most rigid immigration reform laws passed recently. In addition to authorizing detention of individuals on reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants, the law provides harsh restrictions on employment for illegal immigrants. Businesses cited multiple times for hiring undocumented workers could lose their business licenses. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants are prohibited from applying for a job, and anyone transporting or harboring undocumented immigrants will be punished by a fine or jail time. Earlier this week, the DOJ filed [JURIST report] a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in the Alabama district court. A group of immigrants filed a lawsuit in an Alabama state court [JURIST report] in late July arguing that the Alabama immigration law conflicts with the Alabama Constitution [text], which expressly encourages immigration. The ACLU, the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA) [advocacy websites] and several other civil rights groups jointly filed [JURIST report] a motion for preliminary injunction [text, PDF] earlier in July in an effort to prevent the Alabama immigration law from taking effect. Similar laws have been passed in Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah [JURIST reports]. Federal courts have enjoined the laws in Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma and Utah [JURIST reports].

Even focusing on the DNA profile alone, the analogy to fingerprints is blind to the nature of DNA. Courts are well aware that—[r]ecent studies have begun to question the notion that junk DNA does not contain useful genetic programming material and that an intense debate on this subject is now taking place in scientific and legal communities. ... Like the DNA laws of almost every other state and federal law, the DNA Act is silent as to how long these specimens and samples may be kept, and it is reasonable to expect they will be preserved long into the future, when it may be possible to extract even more personal and private information than is now the case. ... [T]he Act places few restrictions on the law enforcement uses to which such information may be put. This raises questions both about the kind of personal and private information that may be derived from the DNA samples in the DOJ's possession, and the uses of that biometric data as scientific developments increase the type and amount of information that can be extracted from it. For example, commentators have discussed the potential for research to identify genetic causes of antisocial behavior that might be used to justify various crime control measures. Fingerprinting presents no comparable threat to privacy.

Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 8-6 that law enforcement officers are permitted to obtain DNA samples [JURIST report] from arrestees. The appeals court overruled a lower court's decision, concluding that because arrestees have a diminished expectation of privacy, the government's interest in collecting and testing the DNA sample outweighed the intrusion on defendant's privacy. The court pointed to the government's compelling interest in identifying suspects and the unique attributes of DNA evidence to reach its conclusion. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] instructed federal prosecutors in 2010 to use DNA evidence as much as possible and collect DNA evidence from all federal arrestees [JURIST report], in a reversal of Bush administration policy. In 2009, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California [official website] upheld the constitutionality [opinion, PDF] of mandatory DNA collection for all persons arrested or detained under federal authority, holding that although the collection of DNA from those arrested on federal felony, sexual abuse, or violent crime charges does constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, a person arrested based on probable cause "has a diminished expectation of privacy in his own identity." Federal agencies began collecting DNA samples [JURIST report] in April 2009, although they had been authorized to do so since 2006. About 1.2 million additional people could be added to the FBI's Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) [official website; FBI backgrounder] every year under the expansion, although people who are not convicted can request the destruction [WP report] of their DNA samples. In November 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that all convicted federal felons must provide DNA samples to a federal database available to police departments throughout the country. In 2005, the Third Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that a convicted bank robber had to submit DNA samples to CODIS.

Khadr was charged after he was captured following a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002 in which he threw a hand grenade that killed one US soldier and wounded another. In August 2010, the military judge rejected Khadr's claim that his confession was a byproduct of torture [JURIST report]. Earlier that August, the same judge ruled that Khadr's confession was admissible at trial [JURIST report]. Canada had previously declined to seek Khadr's repatriation [JURIST report] after his former lawyers obtained a ruling in the Supreme Court of Canada [official website] that the interrogation of Khadr by Canadian officials while in detention violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text]. According to the ruling, Canadian officials questioned Khadr, who was captured at age 15, even though they knew he was being indefinitely detained, and, in March 2004, he was questioned with knowledge that he was subjected to three weeks sleep deprivation by US authorities. Still, that ruling did not force the government to seek his repatriation.