Sanader's trial is the first criminal proceeding prompted by EU pressure for Croatia to crack down on corruption. Sanader's trial was postponed [JURIST report] last month for health reasons. Elected to parliament after he stepped down from the prime minister position in 2009, Sanader was indicted in September as part of an anti-corruption campaign launched his hand-picked successor Jadranka Kosor [official profile]. Croatia is close to achieving membership in the European Union (EU), and Kosor hopes Sanader's trial will help ease pressure from Brussels for Croatia to sort out corruption and speed investigations. Sanader was extradited [JURIST report] to Croatia in July in order to face these charges after he was arrested in Austria last December. Sanader had argued that it would be impossible to receive a fair trial in Croatia, but he dropped his stance after media speculation [JURIST report] suggested the appeal could harm EU Croatia's accession. The Kosor government completed accession talks with the EU in June, and is hoping to join in July 2013.

Members of the House of Representatives Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group defended DOMA in a filing [text, PDF] in October in the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website]. The group contends that DOMA "easily passes the rational basis test," which would apply because "sexual orientation is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the traditional factors used to determine such classes" including immutability and political powerlessness. Even though the Obama administration has stopped defending the constitutionality of DOMA [JURIST report], benefits continue to be denied. Last month, a disabled Navy veteran filed a notice of appeal [JURIST report] with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [official website] for denying her partner a share of her disability benefits under DOMA. Carmen Cardona filed for veterans' spousal benefits last year but was denied. The Department of Veterans Affairs [official website] reportedly told her she could not receive benefits because her spouse was a woman, which is not a recognized marriage under federal law. In February, congressional Democrats introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which was intended to repeal DOMA [JURIST report].

Last month JURIST Guest Columnist Pedro Sousa [official profile, in Portuguese] of Carneiro de Almeida & Pires Advogados wrote [JURIST comment] that the Belo Monte dam violates the constitutional mandate to protect indigenous peoples and the environment. In September the Malaysian Federal Court [official website] unanimously ruled against indigenous people [JURIST report] challenging a similar hydroelectric dam. The indigenous people argued that they received inadequate compensation for the Sarawak government's seizure of their land to build the dam. The judges stated that if the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the amount of compensation then that is a matter for arbitration, not for the court. In December 2010 the US government pledged to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [JURIST report], a non-binding UN treaty expressing support for the rights of indigenous peoples. The US was the last member to lend its support to the treaty. In August of that year UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] called on governments to improve the living conditions of indigenous peoples [JURIST report] and support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Katsav's appeal began in August after he submitted a 300-page document [JURIST reports] following his conviction and sentencing. His sentence was delayed [JURIST report] in May pending the outcome of this decision. Katsav was convicted in December 2010 after rejected a controversial plea bargain [JURIST reports]. The indictment came down in March 2009 in response to the original allegations [JURIST reports] levied in 2006.

What we have found is a public security policy that is badly failing on two fronts. It has not succeeded in reducing violence. Instead, it has resulted in a dramatic increase in grave human rights violations, virtually none of which appear to be adequately investigated. In sum, rather than strengthening public security in Mexico, Calderon "war" has exacerbated a climate of violence, lawlessness, and fear in many parts of the country.

The HRW report comes in response to widespread violence in Mexico in the fight against drug cartels. This is not the first time the security forces have been accused of committing rights abuses. In August, Mexico's National Human Rights Commission [official website, in Spanish] issued a report [text, PDF, in Spanish] contending that military and law enforcement officials routinely conducted illegal searches [JURIST report]. Mexico has struggled to combat the drug cartels' influence on the government and the country as a whole. There have been more than 27,000 drug-related deaths [STRATFOR report] since 2006. In 2008, a former Assistant Attorney General was arrested for receiving bribes and Mexico's prosecutor's office admitted that it had been infiltrated [JURIST reports] by the drug cartels.

The panel's sweeping, and unnecessary, vacatur order eradicates over a dozen thoughtful district court rulings, including factual findings after a full bench trial. It not only condemns any future servicemember who may claim injury from an unconstitutional discharge under DADT to re-litigate the entire factual basis for this lawsuit, at an enormous cost in judicial resources, but it calls into public question the very validity of the proceedings below, which were held and concluded before the Repeal Act was enacted. Resolution of these issues is vital to public confidence in the adequacy, transparency, and correctness of the judicial process.

In July, the Ninth Circuit had ruled that DADT would remain partially in effect [JURIST report] during the 60 days prior to its scheduled repeal. The court effectively reiterated its order issued the previous week [JURIST report] in which it reinstated DADT but explicitly ordered the military to refrain from investigating, penalizing or discharging any of its members as originally provided for under the policy. Hours earlier, President Barack Obama [official website], Defense Secretary Leon Panetta [official profile] and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified [JURIST report] DADT's repeal, scheduling the policy to end September 20. Obama signed the bill to repeal DADT [JURIST report] in December. The DADT Repeal Act was approved by the Senate in December after being passed [JURIST reports] by the House of Representatives the week before. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

Tobacco packaging is at issue in the US as well. Earlier this week a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] granted a temporary injunction to block the implementation [JURIST report] of new requirements of graphic image and textual warning labels imposed by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) [HR 1256 text]. In 2009, US President Barack Obama [official website] signed the FSPTCA into law [JURIST report], granting the FDA certain authority to regulate tobacco products. The legislation heightens warning-label requirements, prohibits marketing "light cigarettes" as a healthier alternative and allows for the regulation of cigarette ingredients.

Nashiri has been at the center of controversy for many years. In May, lawyers for Nashiri filed suit against Poland [JURIST report] over his supposed torture in a secret CIA prison [JURIST news archive] in the country. In 2007, Nashiri declared that his confession to orchestrating the USS Cole bombing was elicited under torture [JURIST report]. Nashiri, along with fellow militant Jamal al-Badawi [FBI backgrounder], was sentenced to death [JURIST report] by a Yemeni court in 2004 for his role in the attack on the Cole.

The scope are [sic] the mandates of Federal law dealing with the method, quality, and marketing of turning animals into meat for human consumption. ... None of the provisions are within the scope because California is not regulating animals that are going to be turned into meat. And the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the purpose of the act, the legislative history of the act show, that the scope of the act is concerned with animals that are going to become meat.

In Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (RFPC) [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court considered whether state court products liability claims relating to the death of an individual exposed to asbestos were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) [49 USC § 20701]. The petitioner was exposed and subsequently passed away after working on the braking system of trains which contained asbestos. Petitioner urged the court to construe the Inspection Act narrowly (as applying to the safety of locomotives in use on railroad lines and not applying to hazards to mechanics conducting repairs) because

in 1970 Congress expressly and comprehensively legislated in the Federal Rail Safety Act and provided a conflict preemption regime in which if a State had a rule in place that rule would be permitted to survive unless and until the Federal Rail Administration issued a regulation. And there has never been a regulation on asbestos. ... [W]hat [respondent is] seeking to do is to take the doctrine of implied field preemption, gain immunity from State law liability and not be subject to any Federal rules. And it's that proposition that is an extraordinary proposition of implied field preemption.

Landmines, booby-traps and other explosive devices aggravate and prolong the horrendous consequences of armed conflict. Both during and after hostilities, they kill indiscriminately, maim vulnerable civilians and cause excessive, yet random, suffering of combatants. Since its inception, the Protocol has helped shape global efforts to eliminate that scourge. ... Furthermore, evidence provided years ago by members of the United Nations Mine Action Team indicates the need to strengthen international rules applicable to mines other than anti-personnel mines. ... Universalizing the Protocol remains as important as ever.

The call to universalize the treaty is not the first. In November 2010, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged the US to become a state party [JURIST report] to the Mine Ban Treaty [text], repeating a plea made in March [JURIST report]. The calls came after the US State Department [official website] stated in November 2009 that the US will not be signing the treaty [JURIST report] to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines. In April 2007, Ban urged all countries to sign [JURIST report] and abide by international treaties banning landmines International Mine Awareness Day.