Earlier this week the ICTB delayed [JURIST report] the start of its first war crimes trial. The ICTB was slated to hear arguments in the case of Delwar Hossain Sayedee, leader of JI. Sayedee's lawyer asked the tribunal to review the charges against his client. The tribunal accepted 20 of 31 charges including allegations of aiding Pakistani soldiers, committing murder and rape, torching villages, looting and forcibly converting Hindus to Islam. Sayedee has denied the charges. The trial is scheduled to resume on November 20. In July, Bangladeshi prosecutors filed the underlying war crime charges [JURIST reports] in the ICTB against Sayedee.

[JURIST press release] JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc. is pleased to announce the appointment of Matthew Shames as Executive Director. In this role, Mr. Shames will oversee JURIST's business and development efforts, including outreach and educational initiatives, fundraising, and corporate management. Mr. Shames will also serve as JURIST's in-house general counsel.

"Matt brings to JURIST a unique combination of legal, managerial, entrepreneurial and technical experience, as well as longtime familiarity with and dedication to JURIST's public service mission," said Bernard Hibbitts, JURIST's Chairman of the Board and Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. "It's truly a thrill for me to have him back with JURIST full time as the newest member of our professional staff. I know Matt's energy and creativity will have a tremendously positive impact on JURIST in the months and years to come as he focuses on building JURIST's institutional base and expanding our capacity to serve a large national and international audience."

Prior to joining JURIST, Mr. Shames worked as a transactional attorney at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC and Cohen & Grigsby, PC During this time, Mr. Shames focused his practice on commercial real estate development, commercial lending, emerging businesses and general corporate counseling.

Mr. Shames earned his JD from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 2005. While in law school, Mr. Shames served as Editor-in-Chief of the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Additionally, as one of the then-handful of JURIST student staffers, Mr. Shames helped develop and prototype JURIST's Paper Chase legal news operation and was instrumental in recruiting the first class of JURIST student news anchors for what has since become JURIST's flagship service. He also received a Bachelor of Arts (American Civilization major, English minor) from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Shames worked for eight years in the high-technology sector in several roles, including as a programmer, project manager and consultant. Mr. Shames co-founded and served as vice-president of Interactive Ensemble, Inc., a web application development company that was based in Austin, Texas, from 1997-2001.

JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation housed at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Commonly referred to simply as JURIST, it produces a Web-based legal news publication and real-time legal research service powered by a mostly-volunteer team of over 50 part-time law student reporters, editors and Web developers. JURIST focuses on legal issues with significant jurisprudential, social and political implications, with an emphasis on quickly locating and presenting primary source materials - the judicial decisions, legislation, testimony, reports and releases behind the legal news - so readers can evaluate those directly. Furthermore, JURIST attempts to assess and present legal news in a factual, objective and neutral manner. JURIST is produced as a public service for the continuing legal education of its readers and law student staffers.

Intimidation of the lay and monastic community must be avoided, and the right of members of the monastic community and the wider community to freely practice their religion, should be fully respected by the Chinese Government. Restrictive measures not only curtail the right to freedom of religion or belief, but further exacerbate the existing tensions and are counterproductive.

China's human rights record has been widely criticized. In June, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances [official website], another party to Tuesday's statement, urged China to address its practice of "enforced disappearances" [JURIST report] and reveal the location of 355 detained Tibetan monks. Earlier in June, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] urged China to release protestors [JURIST report] arrested during peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square [BBC backgrounder] in June 1989. Rights groups marked the twentieth anniversary in 2009 and called for the government to investigate the incident [JURIST report]. In May, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] called for the immediate release of Chinese rights activist and Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Liu, awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in absentia, is currently serving an 11-year prison term [JURIST reports] after being convicted on charges of subversion in a trial that lasted only two hours and was closed to foreign diplomats. In March, the UN called on the Chinese government to free detained human rights lawyer [JURIST report] Gao Zhisheng [advocacy website; JURIST news archive].

In June, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] urged the USSC to apply the Fair Sentencing Act [S 1789 materials] retroactively [JURIST report]. He argued "there is simply no just or logical reason why their punishments should be dramatically more severe than those of other cocaine offenders." Under a law passed in 1986, an individual possessing five grams of crack cocaine would receive a mandatory five-year prison sentence, while an individual possessing powder cocaine would need to have 100 times that amount to receive the same sentence. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] praised [press release] the bill's passage, stating that the old law also created a racial disparity, with African Americans comprising 79.8 percent of all offenders sentenced for crack cocaine violations. In April 2008, a study released by the USSC reported that more than 3,000 prison inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses had their sentences reduced [JURIST report] under an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In 2007, the USSC voted unanimously [JURIST report] to give retroactive effect to an earlier sentencing guideline amendment that reduced crack cocaine penalties.

UNODC's mandate in combating organized crime is complementary to UNHCR's work of protecting refugees. As we have often seen with human trafficking and migrant smuggling, criminals prey on society's most vulnerable. Refugees, in search of a better life, can become victims of these criminals and it's important that we offer coordinated assistance to those who need it the most.

Human trafficking has become an increasingly scrutinized issue in recent years, both in the US and abroad. In August, the UN Special Rapporteur on human trafficking urged Thailand [JURIST report] to crack down on human trafficking, especially with regard to children subjected to sexual and labor exploitation. In September 2010, the US Department of Justice [official website] brought charges [JURIST report] against six people in the largest US case of human trafficking. In June 2010, the UNODC issued a memorandum [text, PDF] that human trafficking is becoming a major problem in Europe [JURIST report]. Also that month, the US State Department [official website] released its annual report [text, pdf] on human trafficking, concluding [JURIST report] that the US has a "serious problem with human trafficking, both for labor and commercial sexual exploitation."

International maritime piracy [JURIST news archive] reached an all-time high [JURIST report] early in the first quarter of 2011, according to a report [press release] released in April by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) [official website]. Earlier that month, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution [JURIST report] to consider creating new laws, courts and prisons specialized to address the growing problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia. Last January, the IMB reported [JURIST report] that, to that point, 2009 marked the worst year of piracy since 2003, spiking near Somalian waters then as well. In July 2009, the IMB reported [JURIST report] that pirate attacks around the globe doubled in the first half of 2009. Few countries have been willing to prosecute suspected pirates. The few that have attempted to do so include Germany, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports].

Government and public officials justify the actions of the police and media regulatory authorities on the basis that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are not absolute and can be limited in light of public interest. International law is however, very clear that any restrictions on these rights must be exceptional, narrowly defined, only where demonstrably necessary and proportionate for one of the specific purposes recognized as legitimate under international law, and must not place in jeopardy the right itself.

This is not the first time Uganda has been criticized for infringing on its citizens' rights. In May, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called on Uganda to stop using violence [JURIST report] against protesters. Pillay also criticized the government at that time for having arrested opposition leader Kizza Beisgye multiple times. In 2010, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] condemned Uganda for the use of torture and unlawful arrests [JURIST report] in anti-terrorism efforts. In 2007, a report released by the Uganda Human Rights Commission [official website] showed that 320 Ugandan citizens had filed complaints [JURIST report] against the government for torture.

The SCAF has recently passed a number of new laws and amended preexisting laws. Last month, the SCAF issued a decree banning discrimination [JURIST report] on the basis of race, gender or religion. The SCAF article, Law Decree No. 125 / 2011, amended Criminal Law provisions first passed in 1937. The new article imposes heavy penalties, amounting to fines of up to EGP 100,000 (USD $16,778) and a prison sentence of up to three months, on civil servants who discriminate against citizens in ways that threaten social justice or equal opportunity or disturb the public peace. Earlier that same month, a similar SCAF amendment altered election rules to ban the use of religious slogans [JURIST report] in campaigning. The article is expected to have an immediate effect on the Muslim Brotherhood [party website; JURIST news archive] whose traditional slogan "Islam is the solution" was banned under the new electoral guidelines. However, two days later an Egyptian court overturned a ban [JURIST report] that the formation of the Islamic-based political party Al-Gama'a al-Islamiya [party website].

In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters and to conduct foreign relations. ... Although States may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a State may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of disparate state and local immigration policies throughout the country.

State responses to inadequate federal immigration law continue to create controversy. The South Carolina legislation was recently challenged [complaint, PDF] by a coalition of civil rights groups [JURIST report], including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] and others who claim it invites racial profiling and interferes with federal law. 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 [JURIST reports]. In August, the state of Arizona filed a petition for writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court 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.

This suit is one in a long line of legal challenges to the Arizona law. Last month, a federal judge dismissed a counterclaim [JURIST report] filed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] and state Attorney General Tom Horne [official profile] against the US government in the lawsuit challenging the controversial Arizona immigration law. In August, the state of Arizona filed a petition for writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn a lower court decision enjoining four of the law's provisions. In a preview of how it might rule should it decide to hear the case, the Supreme Court in May ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that Arizona's controversial employment related immigration law [materials] is not preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) [text]. Last year, the Department of Justice [official website] sued [JURIST report] the state of Arizona and Governor Brewer over SB 1070, arguing that both the Constitution and federal law "do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

On questioning, Abd El Fattah declined to answer the prosecutor's questions, stating that it is illegal and a clear conflict of interest for the military, as a party accused of a crime in the same events, to hold proceedings or adjudicate fairly. He was sent to detention pending further military investigation. As of today we refuse to co-operate with the military prosecution of civilians and we call on all Egyptian citizens to stand with us.

Last month, SCAF created an amendment that altered election rules to ban the use of religious slogans [JURIST reports] in campaigning. The article came ahead of the upcoming November elections and is expected to have an immediate effect on the Muslim Brotherhood [party website] whose traditional slogan "Islam is the solution" was banned under the new electoral guidelines. However, two days later an Egyptian court overturned a ban [JURIST report] that prohibited the formation of the Islamic-based political party Al-Gama'a al-Islamiya [party website]. In March, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces announced that it would lift the state of emergency [JURIST report] before parliamentary polls were to be held. The election announcement came a week after an overwhelming majority of Egyptians voted to approve several constitutional amendments [JURIST report] in a national referendum.