Australia is the latest in an international trend to ban the wearing of burqas, niqabs [JURIST news archives] or full face veils in some situations. Earlier this month, an Italian parliamentary commission approved a draft law [JURIST report] that bans women from wearing full-face veils, including the Islamic burqa and niqab in public. In July, Belgium implemented a law banning women from wearing the burqa [JURIST report] in public, with violators facing the possibility of fines or up to seven days in jail. A French Muslim couple living in the UK filed a challenge [JURIST report] in June in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] over the French ban [materials, in French] on full face coverings. Also in June, a Spanish court upheld a city ban on veils in municipal buildings for identification and security purposes. In October, the French Constitutional Council ruled that the ban conforms with the Constitution [JURIST report]. Also in October, Dutch politician Geert Wilders [personal website, in Dutch] said that the Netherlands will ban the burqa [JURIST report] as part of the government's plan to form a minority coalition. In August 2010, Austria's conservative Freedom Party [official website, in German] called for a special vote [JURIST report] on whether to ban face veils and the construction of minarets, two of the most visible symbols of the Islamic faith. In July 2010, Spain's lower house of parliament rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to ban the burqa and other full face veils by a vote of 183 to 162 with two abstaining.

On Wednesday, the STL unsealed the indictment [JURIST report] against four alleged Hezbollah [CFR backgrounder] members accused of assassinating Hariri. Last week, the STL president made a public plea for the four men to turn themselves in [JURIST report]. Judge Antonio Cassese guaranteed a fair trial and adequate representation and pressed Lebanese citizens to allow the STL to hold the assassins accountable. In February, the appeals chamber of the STL issued a unanimous ruling [summary, PDF] on several procedural issues, including the definition of terrorism [JURIST report], in judicial proceedings. The STL began debate on the issue [JURIST report] to determine which laws to apply in the case against persons accused of involvement in the February 2005 truck bomb that killed Hariri and 22 other people. Using the Article 314 of the Lebanese Criminal Code [text, PDF], the court held that a conviction on the charge of terrorism requires proof of an act intended to spread terror and use of a means "liable to create a public danger," that the only requirement is that "the means used to carry out the terrorist attack be liable to create a common danger" and that the trial judges should be given latitude in determining whether the requirement was met after having considered the facts presented in the case. The STL was established in 2005 at the request of the Lebanese government to try those alleged to be connected to the bombing in which Hariri was killed by explosions detonated near his motorcade in Beirut.

Last month, Ouattara set up a commission of inquiry [JURIST report] to investigate crimes and human rights violations that took place during the violence following the presidential elections in which former president Gbagbo refused to leave office after losing the election. In April, Gbagbo was captured and forced from office [JURIST report] after refusing to leave despite losing last November's election to Ouattara, which resulted in months of fighting between Ouattara's and Gbagbo's forces. Also that month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] 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 FRCI killed more than 100 civilians, raped at least 20 supporters of Gbagbo and burned at least 10 villages in March. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] also reported the deaths of at least 800 civilians [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast town of Duekoue as a result of intercommunal violence.

We therefore call on the council now to use all measures at its disposal to end the bloodshed. Inter alia, we recommend that the Special Session do the following:

1. The council should strongly condemn Syria for its gross and systematic violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to life.
2. Given the inability of the High Commissioner’s fact-finding mission to enter Syria, the council should request the mission to conduct public hearings at the United Nations office in Geneva, featuring live, televised testimony by victims of the Syrian massacres, some of whom have escaped to neighboring countries. ...
3. The Council should end the protection gap by appointing a Special Rapporteur on the grave situation of human rights in Syria. ...
4. The council should take action to hold the Syrian military and political leadership personally accountable for crimes against humanity.

The Fact-finding Mission was established [JURIST report] by the HRC in April but was not permitted to enter the country. Last week, 27 rights groups called for the HRC to convene a second special session on Syria [JURIST report]. Also last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that an unknown Western country is funding an investigation [JURIST report] into Syria's recent human rights abuses. Last month, two UN rights officials expressed concern over reports of violence [JURIST report] used by Syrian authorities against the country's own people. Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide Francis Deng and Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect Edward Luck said that reports of Syrian forces killing or arbitrarily arresting peaceful protesters indicate potentially grievous violations of international human rights laws, and urged officials to adhere to the government's 2005 pledge to protect its citizens. In June, the OHCHR published a preliminary report [JURIST report] describing human rights violations in Syria and calling for an investigation into government-authorized abuses related to pro-democracy protests that began earlier this year.

Reactions to the new policy have poured in from around the nation. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) [official website], a major sponsor of the DREAM Act, praised the decision [press release]: "The Obama Administration has made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students. These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, Senators, who will make America stronger." However, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] called the announcement backdoor amnesty [press release, PDF]. Rights groups have also been critical of the decision, stating it does not go far enough. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], in an emailed press release, criticized the focus on criminals for deportation: "The administration says it will focus on individuals with crimes, but many of those individuals came to the United States at a young age, have spouses and children who are U.S. citizens, and pose no danger to our country." Reform Immigration for America [advocacy website] also said the new policies don't go far enough [press release]. Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights [advocacy website] filed suit [JURIST report] challenging the practice of shackling immigration detainees in court.