The NTC faces considerable challenges in its efforts to reform the judicial system and control the numerous armed militias that have largely taken the law into their own hands. In a period of transition, it is imperative that the NTC firmly demonstrate its commitment to turning the page on decades of gross and systematic violations in Libya. It must uphold human rights in Libya and exercise the necessary political will to investigate abuses committed by anti-Gaddafi forces, prosecute those responsible, and ensure that individuals found guilty of abuses are held to account for their actions and removed from positions that would allow them to repeat such abuses.

The NTC has been gaining recognition among other countries, as well as the World Bank [JURIST report]. Last month, the NTC vowed to investigate allegations of human rights after AI published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict [JURIST backgrounder] are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate these allegations. Also last month, the NTC assured world leaders that Libya will be a society of tolerance and respect [JURIST report] for the rule of law. During a meeting [BBC report] in Paris chaired by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, NTC leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil [BBC profiles] vowed to administer elections and draft a new constitution for Libya within 18 months. However, allegations of war crimes and human rights violations have been widespread during the Libya conflict.

Human rights groups have closely scrutinized Kazakhstan's adherence to its international human rights obligations. In April, Nazarbayev discharged six justices [JURIST report] of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan [official website] for corruption. Kazakhstan submitted to a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the UN Human Rights Council [official websites] in February 2010. Kazakhstan accepted 121 of the recommendations [Kazakhstan UPR materials] to reduce human rights violation, particularly with respect to freedom of the press. In August 2009, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction [JURIST report] of publisher Ramazan Esergepov, who was sentenced to three years in jail for revealing state secrets in his newspaper. A representative of Freedom of the Media at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) [official websites] said that revealing public corruption [press release] is "the main duty of the journalists acting in the public interest," and that "[c]riminal sanctions for 'breach of secrecy' should only apply to the officials whose job descriptions stipulate the duty to protect sensitive information, but not to citizens."

Despite the large margins and bipartisan support, the measures did not pass without debate. Republicans criticized President Barack Obama [official website] for taking several years to send the agreements to Congress for approval, as they were each originally signed during the Bush administration. Many in the president's own party, including organized labor and Democrats from areas hit hard by foreign competition, were critical of the White House for espousing the benefits of free trade, especially with Colombia, which has a reputation for violence against labor leaders and a history of labor leader assassinations. To appease Democrats, the White House demanded that the trade bills be linked to an extension of a Kennedy-era program that helps workers displaced by foreign competition, an extension that passed through Congress successfully with the trade agreements. In a press release the Panama Chamber of Commerce [official website] stated it "believes that implementation of the U.S.-Panama agreement will enhance export and investment opportunities for US companies and will enable American workers to compete in the quickly growing global economy, in which Panama plays a pivotal role as the gateway to the Americas." The first official trade pact between the US and Central America was signed [JURIST report] by then-president George W. Bush in 2005.

Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran have existed for decades [CNN backgrounder]. There is both a political and religious divide between the countries, as Saudi Arabia is predominately Sunni and Iran is predominately Shia. The recent Arab Spring has only exacerbated tensions between the countries [CNN Q&A] as Iran, at least initially, supported the revolutions because it saw Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain as American allies. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, wished to preserve the status quo in the Arab world. Many commentators suggest that the alleged assassination plot will only further escalate the tension between the countries [TIME report] and strengthen the weakening US-Saudi relationship.

By requiring local law enforcement officials to act as immigration agents, this law invites discrimination against anyone who looks or sounds "foreign," including American citizens and legal residents. It will make criminals out of good Samaritans, harm victims of crime and abuse, hamper police in preventing and solving crimes, and create a climate of fear and prejudice in South Carolina.

The US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama [official website] denied similar motions for injunction against that state's recently passed immigration law last week and last month [JURIST reports]. In August, the state of Arizona filed a petition for writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court [official website] seeking to overturn a lower court decision enjoining four provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive], on which the South Carolina and Alabama legislation is modeled. Several other state legislatures have also 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] 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] considered to be a "watered-down" version of the Arizona bill. Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah [JURIST reports] have all approved Arizona-style immigration bills within the past year.

Al-Bashir remains an extremely controversial figure in international politics for his actions during the Darfur conflict [BBC backgrounder]. The International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] charged him with three counts of genocide [JURIST report] in July 2010, but he has yet to be arrested. In June, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo [official website] issued a statement claiming that al-Bashir has continued to commit crimes against humanity [JURIST report] in Darfur. Also in June, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] criticized China [JURIST report] for welcoming al-Bashir rather than arresting him to stand trial. Amnesty International [advocacy website] also urged China, along with Malaysia [JURIST reports], to arrest the Sudanese president.

In Judulang v. Holder [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court considered whether a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable, but did not leave and reenter the US in the time between his conviction and commencement of removal proceedings, may seek a discretionary waiver of the conviction and thereby avoid removal under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [text]. Judulang, the son of immigrants from the Philippines, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1989 and later claimed that he could seek a discretionary waiver of deportation under 212(c). The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Judulang's aggravated felony crime of violence was not a ground for exclusion under the statute. Counsel for Judulang argued that he would have been eligible to apply for such a waiver under section 212(c) prior to the BIA's 2005 decision in Matter of Blake [opinion, PDF], which changed the policy and found no statutory counterpart to 212(c) in the current immigration Act. Counsel argued that the change in policy violated equal protection as well as "considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations." Counsel for the government argued that the BIA was consistent in its decision making in this area of the law, citing earlier decisions that were consistent with Blake.