Civil society organisations and human rights activists, whose courage and non-violent protest brought about the change of regime in Egypt, must be guaranteed space for open debate, even if it means that the interim authorities are harshly criticised in public fora.

In October, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] warned [JURIST report] that the SCAF may have attempted to cover up various aspects of the killing of more than two dozen mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators. In March, Arab and Egyptian human rights groups accused then-president Mubarak and police of murdering protesters during demonstrations, therein prompting the military council to instruct its top prosecutor to investigate the killings. Although the military council attempted to curb future demonstrations with a proposed law imposing prison sentences [JURIST report] and fines for those inciting protests, the legislation was widely condemned [press release] by international rights groups, namely HRW, as a violation of international law. In February, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] accused Egypt's military council of torturing protester-detainees [JURIST report]. Relying on detainee accounts, AI stated that individuals were tortured "to intimidate protesters and to obtain information about plans for the protests." HRW echoed this sentiment at the time in claiming that the Egyptian military was improperly detaining protesters and allowing prisoner abuse [JURIST report]. Despite a warning to the Egyptian government from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay [UN profile], in January to respect the rights of protesters [JURIST report], Egypt has endured criticism for the handling of its protests throughout the year.

The November 28 election is considered the first free election following the overthrow [JURIST report] of Mubarak in February. Consequently, the upcoming elections have resulted in various legislative and court activities. This month, Egypt stated that it will amend its constitution [JURIST report] based on a court ruling from a week before in order to allow citizens living abroad to vote in the parliamentary election. In addition, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) [NYT backgrounder] announced that it will create a law that will ban [JURIST report] anyone found guilty of corruption from the election process. Mubarak himself is faced with charges of complicity in the deaths of more than 800 protesters [JURIST report] during the pro-democracy demonstrations in Egypt [JURIST news archive]. His trial was adjourned [JURIST report] last month and will not resume until December 28. Also last month, an Egyptian court overturned [JURIST report] a ban prohibiting formation of religious-based political parties. Some restrictions, however, still exist in the election process such as prohibition of using religious slogans [JURIST report] during campaigns.

While each tribunal has successfully tried and convicted numbers of war criminals since its inception, there are still many key trials pending. Serbian general Ratko Mladic [ICTY backgrounder, JURIST news archive] is being held pending his trial at The Hague following his May arrest [JURIST report] after 16 years on the run. He is charged with committing war crimes during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive] and the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive] where 8,000 people were killed. Croation Serb rebel leader Goran Hadzic [ICTY backgrounder], who was arrested [JURIST report] in June, is also being held at The Hague pending his trial also on charges of war crimes committed during the Bosnian civil war and Srebrenica massacre. Rwandan genocide suspect and former Hutu militia leader Bernard Munyagishari is awaiting trial at the ICTR for charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, including rape. He is alleged to have recruited, trained and led a militia group that killed and raped Tutsi women during the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive].

Equatorial Guinea has been criticized by international human rights groups in the past. In August 2010, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] condemned the execution [press release] of four men convicted [JURIST report] of attempting to assassinate Obiang during a 2009 attack on the presidential palace. Denouncing the government's judicial procedures, AI reported that these men were convicted after an unfair trial, sentenced to death and executed without having an opportunity to appeal their sentence. AI urged Equatorial Guinea to put an end to the abductions, torture and executions it carries out in the name of justice. Obiang defended [JURIST news report] the trial and execution of the four men. He stated that the country's laws were respected, and procedures guaranteeing a legal, open and fair trial, including the guarantee of defense counsel, were followed.

All three cases that the court agreed to hear arose out of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled in August that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but severable [JURIST report], upholding the rest of the law. The court took no action on an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center of a Sixth Circuit ruling upholding the individual mandate [JURIST reports]. The court also did not act on appeals by Virginia and Liberty University of two Fourth Circuit rulings which dismissed their challenges for lack of standing [JURIST reports]. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the constitutionality [JURIST report] of PPACA.

Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in two other cases. In Astrue v. Capato [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will rule on whether a child who was conceived after the death of a biological parent, but who cannot inherit personal property from that biological parent under applicable state intestacy law, is eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act [42 USC § 401 et seq.]. There is a circuit split [JURIST report] on the issue. In Armour v. Indianapolis [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a local taxing authority from refusing to refund payments made by those who have paid their assessments in full, while forgiving the obligations of identically situated taxpayers who chose to pay over a multi-year installment plan.