Alwan is one of only a handful of foreign nationals prosecuted in the US for alleged terrorism offenses [JURIST report] in a US-occupied territory such as Iraq or Afghanistan during wartime. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [official website] and others have also objected to holding the trials of Alwan and Hammadi in federal court, but they have cited security concerns and said they should be prosecuted before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. McConnell and others also have said the defendants do not deserve the full protection of the Bill of Rights accorded to civilian defendants. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] has consistently advocated [JURIST report] that terror suspects should be tried in civilian courts, though has not found support from Congress. In April, Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and four other co-conspirators will be tried before a military commission [JURIST report] for their roles in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Holder, who wanted the accused be tried before a federal civilian court [JURIST report], referred the cases to the Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST report] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US.

As founder and leader of al Qaeda [JURIST news archive], Bin Laden represents the highest profile terror target captured or killed by the US. Bin Laden was killed [JURIST report] in early May by American military forces in Pakistan. Critics have questioned the legality of the targeted killing, arguing that such an action violates international law [JURIST op-ed]. Bin Laden had topped the US list of Most Wanted Terrorists [FBI backgrounder] and is believed to have approved or helped plan many notorious terror attacks including those against New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole [JURIST news archives], attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania [PBS backgrounder] in 1998 and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The former head of Ntabakuze's defense, US lawyer and JURIST Forum [website] contributor Peter Erlinder [JURIST news archive], grabbed international attention earlier this year before the ICTR removed him from the case [JURIST report] in April for failing to appear at Ntabakuze's scheduled oral arguments. Erlinder claimed that he did not travel to the tribunal because his life was in danger and that he was on a reported hit list consisting of the opponents of Rwandan President Paul Kagame [official website]. In October 2010, Rwandan Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga announced that Erlinder would be summoned to face charges of genocide denial [JURIST report] in Rwanda, after Erlinder said that it was incorrect to place the blame for the 1994 Rwandan genocide [JURIST news archive] on one side. Erlinder returned to the US in June 2010 after spending 21 days in a Rwandan prison following his arrest [JURIST reports] on genocide denial charges.

The ITCR continues to prosecute individuals for their involvement in the 1994 genocide. In June, the court convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] six individuals, including the first female to be charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. The six were charged with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity including extermination, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. The court also charged Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, former Minister of Women's Development and first female genocide criminal, and her son Arsene Shalom Ntahobali with rape. The court determined that the systematic killing of thousands of ethnic Tutsi authorized and facilitated by the individuals during the genocide amounted to crimes against humanity. Nyiramasuhuko was sentenced to life in prison based on the finding that she was guilty of seven of the 11 charges against her. The varying sentences for the other individuals range from 25 years in prison to life sentences. The six, who were arrested 16 years ago, will receive credit for time served.

At its beginning, Walker ordered the trial recorded exclusively for use in his chambers, permissible under Rule 77-3. The US Supreme Court had prevented the broadcast of the trial [JURIST report] after Judge Walker attempted to put the trial in a pilot program that would have broadcasted the proceedings to other courthouses. The order continued a temporary stay ordered by the Supreme Court the same day the trial began [JURIST reports]. Supporters of Proposition 8 had objected to the controversial decision to broadcast the trial proceedings, claiming it would result in witness intimidation. The YouTube broadcast of the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger [case materials], was to be allowed under the experimental program approved by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] that allows cameras in civil, non-jury cases. Proposition 8 was approved [JURIST report] by California voters in November 2008.

While a high number of women serve in the armed forces around the world, Australia is only the fourth country to allow them to serve on the front-lines without restrictions. Last January, a US Military panel recommended in its latest report that women should be allowed to serve on the front lines of combat [JURIST report]. The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) [official website], composed of retired and current military leaders, said that women, who under current defense policy are prohibited from serving in direct line-of-fire combat, should be permitted to serve in combat and that integration of women into combat forces would have no ill effects. The commission recommended a "time-phased" approach to the implementation of new combat policies that would create additional career options for women that include "direct ground combat." The report addressed common concerns among military officials that inclusion of women in combat forces would present problems with unit cohesion and that the current policy is effective due to current warfare techniques. The commission's conclusion is that in Iraq and Afghanistan women have already been exposed to combat-related activities, with no negative effects, and that the current policy is discriminatory to women.

Last month, former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] testified against [JURIST report] Tymoshenko, his former prime minister. That same month, the Kiev Appeals Court refused Tymoshenko's appeal of her detention for contempt charges [JURIST reports]. Also in August, Judge Rodoin Kireyev rejected a request [JURIST report] from Tymoshenko to release her from prison. In July, 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. In June, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights alleging violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF]. The complaint argued that the charges against Tymoshenko are politically engineered by current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych [official website, in Ukrainian], Tymoshenko's political rival. 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.

In Vartelas v. Holder [docket; cert. petition], the court will determine whether Rosenberg v. Fleuti [opinion text], should be applied to plaintiff Panagis Vartelas instead of current immigration law that repeals the law settled in Fleuti. Rosenberg v. Fleuti held that a permanent legal resident can make "innocent, casual, and brief" trips abroad without being denied reentry. But this interpreted law was changed by 8 USC § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) [text], which holds that a permanent resident can be denied reentry if he has committed a crime of "moral turpitude" in the past. Vartelas pleaded guilty to a crime before the law was ratified and then left the US briefly and was denied reentry. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held [opinion text] that Vartelas was not entitled to immigration review and the law could be applied retroactively and supersedes the Fleuti doctrine.

In Roberts v. Sea-Land Services [docket; cert. petition], the court will clarify when the period for compensation is under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act [text], which goes into effect after a worker is disabled on the job. The calculation for compensation is based on several factors, including the national average wage. Dana Roberts was disabled from a period between 2002 and 2005, but her claim was not adjudicated until 2007. She is arguing that the national average wage should be used from 2007, when the award was first decided, as opposed to 2002, when she was injured. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Roberts misinterpreted the phrase "those newly awarded compensation during such period" and held that her compensation should be calculated based on the 2002 national average.

In Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide if translating written documents is enough to be considered an "interpreter" under 28 USC § 1920 [text] for matters of compensation. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined [opinion, PDF] that translating documents is acting as an interpreter under the law.

In Holder v. Gutierrez [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and Holder v. Sawyers [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will be considering questions on illegal immigrants who reside with lawful immigrants. Essentially, both cases concern whether the alien children of legal residents can have their parents' years in the country imputed to them for the purposes of obtaining citizenship. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Gutierrez and in Sawyers [opinions, PDF] that the Board of Immigration must review their deportation orders and consider their parents' years in lawful residence as well as if, as minors, they were residing with their legal immigrant parents.

In Wood v. Milyard [docket; cert. petition], the court will determine if the prosecution raising a statute of limitations argument in response to plaintiff's appeal is an error. Further, specific to this case, if the state's assurance to the plaintiff that they would not raise a statute of limitations argument is enough to bind them to not be able to raise it later in proceedings. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling [opinion text] barred Patrick Wood's petition for writ of habeas corpus based on its timeliness.

Finally, in US v. Home Concrete & Supply [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will look at what can activate an "extended six-year assessment" period for taxes. The case questions if an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of property assets can trigger this period. A Department of Treasury regulation holds that it does, and the court will also examine if this regulation should have judicial deference. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the assessment should not have been initiated, and that the Department of Treasury's regulation was not holding.

It is ... imperative that [members of the legislative assembly] call upon the government to ensure that sufficient resources are provided on an urgent basis for such identification by an independent body. The state government must also ensure that all past and current allegations of enforced disappearances are promptly, thoroughly, independently and impartially investigated and that, where there is sufficient evidence, anyone suspected of responsibility for such crimes is prosecuted in proceedings which meet international fair trial standards.

In May, a report [text, PDF] released by AI alleged that hundreds of people are being held without charge [JURIST report] or trial in Kashmir and Jammu. AI reported that India's Public Safety Act (PSA) [text] is being used to detain people despite the absence of sufficient evidence for a trial. Over the last decade, between 8,000 and 20,000 people have been detained through the PSA, including 322 between January and September 2010. The PSA only applies to Kashmir and Jammu, a state that has been rife with unrest since it became part of India [JURIST report] in the middle of the twentieth century. Kashmir and Jammu, which is officially part of India, has been disputed between Pakistan and India since 1947. Claims by both Pakistan and India to the territory have resulted in several conflicts in the region, particularly the Indo-Pakistan wars of 1947-1948 and 1965. In addition, there was a large show of military force by both nations in the region in 2002 that caused international alarm because both nations have nuclear weapons. India has sought to stifle unrest and a burgeoning separatist movement in the region by detaining human rights and political activists.