January 2012 Archives

These horrific images of torture on video show what rights groups have long documented: that India's Border Security Force is out of control. The Indian government is well aware of killings and torture at the border, but has never prosecuted the troops responsible. This video provides a clear test case of whether the security forces are above the law in India.

In December 2010, HRW and the Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) [advocacy website], a Kolkatta-based NGO that posted the video, and Odhikar [advocacy website], an NGO based in Dhaka, published Trigger Happy: Excessive Use of Force by Indian Troops at the Bangladesh Border [text, PDF], a report accusing BSF soldiers of torturing both Indians and Bangladeshis. Although the Indian government soon thereafter ordered an end to the use of lethal force by BSF soldiers except in self-defense, allegations of killings and torture have continued. In April 2010, the Cabinet of India approved [JURIST report] the Prevention of Torture Bill [text, PDF] after lengthy legislative delays in an effort to move the country closer to international human rights standards.

The Armenian genocide is also a contentious issue in US law and politics. In November the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] decided to revisit a case [JURIST report] to determine whether a California law declaring Armenian genocide in Turkey conflicts with US foreign policy. In August 2010 a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] unanimously dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the exclusion of materials questioning the Armenian genocide from a school curriculum. In March 2010 the Obama administration announced its opposition to a resolution [JURIST report] labeling the World War I-era killings as genocide. The announcement came after the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the resolution [JURIST report] by a vote of 23-22. Erdogan condemned the resolution, and the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to the US.

Last March, Garzon filed a petition [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging the 2010 abuse of power charges, for which he was suspended [JURIST report]. His petition follows the September 2010 decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court, which unanimously confirmed [JURIST report] a lower court order that Garzon abused his power and must face trial. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. He is also facing two other trials, including one trial that began earlier in January involving charges that he ordered the placement of wiretaps in jailhouses [JURIST report] to record conversations between inmates and their lawyers. The third trial, which has not started, involves bribery charges over money Garzon received for seminars conducted in the US.

It is clear under international law that there is no statute of limitations for such crimes, and the UN Human Rights office has provided technical assistance and legal advice stressing this point. We are extremely disappointed at reports that Mr. Duvalier may not be charged with any human rights crimes, despite numerous complaints by victims to the prosecutor. Impunity for such serious crimes cannot be allowed to prevail and we urge the relevant authorities to ensure that justice is, belatedly, delivered to the many victims of human rights abuses committed under the government of Mr. Duvalier. There can be no true reconciliation and forgiveness without justice.

Haiti has been urged numerous times by different organizations to improve its human rights records and to try Duvalier for his crimes against humanity. In September, AI urged [JURIST report] the Haitin government to prosecute Duvalier after its release of a report [report, PDF] documenting crimes committed during the former president's reign. The findings were the result of an eight-month investigation [JURIST report]. In July, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] Kyung-Wha Kang [official website] pressed Haiti [JURIST report] to establish a system of human rights and equality, especially by speeding up the case against Duvalier. He was accused of crimes against humanity and corruption [JURIST reports] in January of last year.

Seselj's war crimes trial began [JURIST report] in 2007 after he was charged [indictment, PDF] with three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes and accused of establishing rogue paramilitary units affiliated with the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRS), which are believed to have massacred and otherwise persecuted Croats and other non-Serbs during the Balkan conflict. In July, Seselj alleged that he was being denied "speedy process," as he has been in custody since February 2003, and that the ICTY had denied him the right to defend himself by not fully funding his defense. Seselj made similar claims in 2009 [press release], which were also refuted by the court. His trial was briefly suspended [JURIST report] in 2009 because of concerns witnesses were being intimidated. The trial resumed in 2010 after the delay, and was again ordered to continue in 2011 after Seselj sought to have the charges dismissed [case sheet, PDF]. The trial recently resumed earlier this month, after Seslj's third contempt conviction.

Allegations of widespread corruption in Romania have been ongoing since the nation broke away from the Soviet Union in 1989. Last week, the Constitutional Court of Romania ruled that a law allowing local and parliamentary elections to be held at the same time [JURIST report] was unconstitutional. After the ruling, Romanian President Traian Basescu defended his administration amid protests against the government's education, justice, criminal and economic policies. In March 2010, the EC released a report advising Romania to do more to combat corruption and organized crime [JURIST report] as well as conduct judicial reforms in order to enjoy their full rights as members of the European Union (EU). In January 2007, Romania officially joined the EU [JURIST report] following six years of accession negotiations.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has recently been in the news over issues concerning the ongoing struggle between the government and the courts. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani honored a summons issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan [JURIST report] by appearing earlier this month to answer contempt charges brought by the court. Gilani was ordered to appear to explain why he did not comply with court's order to reopen a corruption case against Zardari. The conflict between the prime minister and the court stems from an order which struck down [JURIST report] the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) [text] in 2009, which granted immunity to Zardari and 8,000 other government officials from charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder and terrorism between January 1986 and October 1999.

• Review sentencing and release policies to determine which could be modified to reduce the growing population of older prisoners without risking public safety;
• Develop comprehensive plans for housing, medical care, and programs for the current and projected populations of older prisoners; and
• Modify prison rules that impose unnecessary hardship on older inmates.

California's prison population has raised particular concerns. Earlier this month, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled that California prison officials have failed to protect disabled parolees [JURIST report] by not providing them wheelchairs and other mobility assistance devices. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Brown v. Plata [Cornell LII backgrounder] to uphold an order requiring California to release up to 46,000 prisoners [JURIST report] to remedy the state's overcrowded prisons [JURIST news archive]. California submitted a plan [JURIST report] to comply with the court's order, but the state's Legislative Analyst's Office [official website] has concluded that California is unlikely to meet [JURIST report] the Supreme Court's two-year deadline. According to the International Center for Prison Studies [official website], the US has the most prisoners per capita [text, PDF] in the world.

After the court's preliminary ruling on Friday, a group of youth protesters were confronted by the police, resulting in the death of one officer. With legal means of stopping Wade's candidacy now exhausted, the country may face instability in the coming weeks. The governments of the US and France have both warned of instability that could result from election-related violence.

The caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad have sparked controversy across the globe. In May 2010 the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority [official website] ordered [JURIST report] Internet service providers to block social networking site Facebook [website] in response to a competition created by a group of the website's members entitled "Draw Muhammad Day." Also in May, a Danish public prosecutor for the Utrecht District Court filed an appeal against an April ruling [JURIST reports] acquitting the Arab European League (AEL) of hate speech charges stemming from posting an inflammatory cartoon on their website insinuating that the Holocaust was fabricated. The court ruled that publishing the cartoon was not a criminal offense because it was intended to be a contribution to public debate regarding a perceived double standard in the distribution of the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

Allegations of war crimes and human rights violations have been widespread in the aftermath of the Libyan conflict. Earlier this month Middle East rights groups alleged human rights violations [JURIST report] and that all parties involved, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website], committed acts ranging from use of excessive force against protesters to cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners during detention. In September, the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website] vowed to investigate allegations of human rights after AI published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate these allegations. In August, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) [advocacy website] reported [text, PDF] Libyan troops used children as human shields [JURIST report] to deter attacks by NATO. That same month, the Libyan Prime Minister Al Baghdad Ali Al-Mahmoudi requested that the UN create a "high-level commission" to investigate alleged human rights abuses [JURIST report] by NATO.

The cabinet expressed sorrow in view of the increasingly growing provocative calls which instigate the targeting of security personnel—these provocative calls come from forums, website, social networks or practically during unlicensed demonstrations and gatherings which have nothing to do with peacefulness, calls for reformation, freedom of expression nor democracy.

Protests and demonstrations in Bahrain [BBC backgrounder] have been ongoing since February 2011 [JURIST report]. In response to the BICI report, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official profile] swore that reforms would be made. Al Khalifa promised to amend the nation's constitution [text] earlier this month, to allow the National Assembly [official profile] more oversight of ministers and cabinet members [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, a Bahraini court on overturned the death sentences for two protesters convicted of killing two police officers during the demonstrations that took place in the country last year. The original conviction [JURIST report] was rendered by a special security court set up as part of the emergency law in place while the country's Sunni rulers attempted to silence a Shiite-led to effort bolster civil and political rights in the country. In December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that the Bahrain government should release prisoners detained during peaceful protests [JURIST report] and focus on rebuilding national trust in the government. Pillay's statement followed a visit by a team of human rights officials to Bahrain at the invitation of the Bahrain government.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a promise to all people in all places at all times. Let me mention one form of discrimination that has been ignored or even sanctioned by many States for far too long-discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This has prompted some governments to treat people as second-class citizens, or even criminals. Confronting this discrimination is a challenge. But we must live up to the ideals of the Universal Declaration.

In June, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] passed [JURIST report] the "Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity" resolution, the UN's first resolution calling for an end to sexuality discrimination. In March 2009, the US signed [JURIST report] a UN gay rights declaration [text, PDF], which had previously been signed by 66 other nations. The declaration is a nonbinding measure that does not have the full force of a resolution. It urges on states to end criminalization and persecution of homosexuals. In 2008, the UN General Assembly [official website] was divided over the issue of decriminalizing homosexuality [JURIST report] with nearly half the countries calling for decriminalization, while the remaining countries opposed decriminalization.

The Supreme Court [official website] is set to hear arguments in February in US v. Alvarez [JURIST report; docket] to decide whether the SVA is constitutional. The case is an appeal from a ruling [JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] that the SVA is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Ninth Circuit held that the speech prohibited under the Stolen Valor Act did not fit within the narrow categories of false speech held to be beyond the First Amendment's "protective sweep." The Stolen Valor Act was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed into law by former president George W. Bush in 2006. The act broadened provisions of previous US law and criminalizes the unauthorized wear, manufacture, sale or written or oral claim of any military decorations and medals.

The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption.

Most manifestations of violence are underreported in the context of a family-oriented and patriarchal society where, domestic violence is not always perceived as a crime, there is economic dependency, and there are perceptions that the state response to such complaints will not be appropriate or helpful...[a] fragmented legal framework and inadequate investigation, punishment for perpetrators, and compensation for women victims of violence, also contributes to the silencing and invisibility surrounding this issue.

Violence against women and gender equality also proves to be an issue for the rest of the world. In October, Manjoon appeared in front of the UN General Assembly to urge states to fulfill their obligations to prevent violence against women. Manjoo also released a report in June that said there is a continued prevalence of violence and discriminatory treatment of women in the US [JURIST report], with a heightened impact on poor, minority and immigrant women. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay pressed [JURIST report] Tunisia and Egypt to ensure that women's rights receive constitutional protection and to include women in the dialogue to shape the future of their countries. Last January, a US Military panel recommended [JURIST report] that women should be allowed to serve on the front lines of combat. Also last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on the Afghan government to protect the rights of women [JURIST report] during integration and reconciliation efforts conducted with the Taliban and other militants. Earlier in 2010, India's upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha, approved a bill [JURIST report] to ensure that one-third of seats in parliament are reserved for women.

If enacted, the Netherlands will become the second European country, after France [text, in French], to ban the burqa. A French court in September first enforced its own ban [JURIST report] when it fined two Muslim women for violating the controversial French law. Although more than 90 women were previously cited by police, the fines are the first time a French court has enforced the law passed in April. The Netherlands is not the only country to follow France's lead by attempting to ban face coverings. In August, an Italian parliamentary commission approved a draft law [JURIST report] that bans women from wearing full-face veils in public. In July, Belgium implemented a law banning women from wearing the burqa [JURIST report] in public, with violators facing the possibility of fines or up to seven days in jail.

Last summer Barbier dismissed [JURIST report] consolidated racketeering claims against BP in connection with the spill brought under the US Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [text]. In February of last year, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood [official website] asked the district court to order the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) [official website] to fulfill its legal obligations to aid victims of the spill and to remedy inadequate claims mechanisms [JURIST report]. The GCCF began processing claims in August following the completion of negotiations [JURIST reports] between BP and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website]. Former Alabama Attorney General Troy King filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in August 2010 against BP for damages to the state's coast and economy, claiming that the oil giant has failed in its efforts to accept responsibility for the oil spill. In July 2010 a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] was filed against the company in a Louisiana state court alleging that its negligent actions led to the spill and that BP was further negligent in its oversight of the cleanup effort, resulting in volunteers falling ill due to inadequate protective equipment. One month prior, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the DOJ would review whether any criminal or civil laws were violated [JURIST report] by BP.

The Guatemalan Civil War resulted in more than 200,000 deaths, 95 percent of which the military was responsible for according to a UN report [text, in Spanish]. The majority of those who were killed were part of Guatemala's indigenous Mayan population. Two former police officers [JURIST report] and four former soldiers [JURIST report] were convicted in 2010 and 2011 of charges relating to these crimes. Spain attempted to charge Montt [JURIST report] with war crimes in 2008, but failed because it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Montt had ignored warrants [JURIST report] put out by Spain for his arrest in 2006 because he claimed he was not aware of any crimes committed by his men during the war.

Google's new privacy policy should enable consumers to opt-out if they don't want their use of YouTube to morph into YouTrack. Consumers—not corporations—should have control over their own personal information, especially for children and teens. I plan to ask the Federal Trade Commission whether Google's planned changes to its privacy policy violate Google's recent settlement with the agency.

Google has had several legal battles in the last year, with consumer privacy rights often at issue. In August the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced that the agency had reached a $500 million settlement [JURIST report] with Google for permitting Canadian pharmaceutical companies to advertise to and target US consumers. In July a federal judge extended settlement negotiations [JURIST report] over a 2005 copyright suit filed against Google over its Google Books [corporate website] book scanning project. Also in July another federal judge ruled that Google could appeal a decision permitting a wiretapping lawsuit [JURIST report] over Google's Street View [corporate website] service to proceed. Google was accused of violating user privacy by using WiFi networks to collect data for the service, a charge that came as a result of a multistate investigation that began in June of 2010. There have been international rulings on the Street View service as well. A Swiss court ruled the service constituted a violation of privacy, while a German court ruled it did not [JURIST reports].

So far there has been a complete failure on the part of those in power to take concrete steps to end torture and other ill-treatment of detainees and to hold accountable those responsible for such crimes. We don't underestimate the challenges faced by the Libyan transitional authorities in establishing control over the multitude of armed militias operating throughout the country, but we must see them taking decisive action on torture. In the interests of building a new Libya based on respect for human rights, this issue cannot be left at the bottom of the pile.

Allegations of war crimes and human rights violations have been widespread in the aftermath of the Libyan conflict. On Thursday UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed concern [JURIST report] over human rights violations in the country, urging that all detention facilities to be brought under the control of the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor's Office. Last week a coalition of Middle Eastern human rights organizations accused [JURIST report] the parties involved in the Libyan conflict to be in violation of human rights by using excessive force against protesters and cruel treatment of detainees. In September the Libyan NTC vowed to investigate allegations of human rights after AI [advocacy website] published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate the charges. In August Libyan Prime Minister Al Baghdad Ali Al-Mahmoudi requested that the UN create a "high-level commission" to investigate human rights abuses allegedly committed by NATO [JURIST report].

Chevron is also currently appealing an $18 billion fine [JURIST report] for pollution in the Amazon jungle. The judgment against Chevron was upheld in January by a three-judge panel of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. The $18 billion fine, one of the largest in the history of environmental contamination suits, was originally set at $8.6 billion [JURIST report] but was more than doubled for Chevron's refusal to pay "moral reparations" to the Ecuadorian government, as required by the original ruling. The Amazon Defense Coalition [advocacy website], plaintiffs in the suit, have responded that the first judgment was a reaffirmation of how Chevron's greed and criminal misconduct in dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the river has led to death and disease. Damages were initially awarded in February by the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios which found that Texaco, which was acquired by Chevron in 2001, polluted large areas of the country's rain forest.

Just last week, Chevron filed [JURIST report] a similar appeal [text, PDF, in Spanish] with Ecuador's National Court of Justice to reconsider the original decision [press release] by an Ecuadorian judge requiring the oil company to pay roughly $18 billion in damages for its role in polluting the Amazon. Specifically, Chevron argued that the judge's decision violated Ecuador's constitution because the court failed to correct or punish the alleged fraud and corruption committed by plaintiffs' attorneys. Chevron also contended that because it inherited the case from Texaco, an oil company who was released from such liability by Ecuador in the 1990s, it too should be released from liability. The judgment was originally upheld in January [JURIST report] by a three-judge panel of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. Though the fine was initially set at $8.6 billion [JURIST report], it was later more than doubled for Chevron's refusal to pay "moral reparations" to the Ecuadorian government, as required by the original ruling. The Amazon Defense Coalition [advocacy website], the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, have said that the first judgment was a reaffirmation of how Chevron's greed and criminal misconduct in polluting the region has led to death and disease. Damages were initially awarded last February by the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios which found that Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, polluted large areas of the country's rain forest.

The State's legitimate governmental interests outweigh appellant's reduced expectation of privacy following a misdemeanor conviction arising out of the same set of circumstances as his felony charge. We conclude that the physical intrusion of Johnson's bodily integrity to acquire the DNA sample is minimal, especially when compared to the other intrusions Johnson is subjected to as part of his probation.

In August 2011 a California Appeals Court struck down the state law [JURIST report] that required DNA samples be taken broadly from any adult arrested or charged with a felony. US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal prosecutors in November 2010 to use DNA evidence as much as possible [JURIST report], reversing the Bush administration policy. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California upheld the constitutionality [JURIST report] of mandatory DNA collection for all persons arrested or detained under federal authority in May 2009.

Wuterich's guilty plea marks the end of the final court-martial resulting from a five-year investigation into the 2005 Haditha killings. Wuterich was denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] his charges in 2010. His trial was postponed in 2008 [JURIST report] after a judge decided to throw out a subpoena for unaired footage of a CBS interview with Wuterich that prosecutors believed could have proven his guilt. Charges against Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani [JURIST news archive] were dropped [JURIST report] in June 2008, the same month 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson [JURIST news archive] was acquitted [JURIST report] of all charges against him relating to the incident. In August 2007, charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone were dismissed [JURIST report]. In 2007, an official report on the Haditha incident by US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell showed that there was "serious misconduct" [JURIST report] at all levels of the chain of command.

The [International Committee of the Red Cross] visited over 8,500 detainees in approximately 60 places of detention between March and December 2011. The majority of detainees are accused of being Gaddafi loyalists and include a large number of sub-Saharan African nationals. The lack of oversight by the central authorities creates an environment conducive to torture and ill-treatment. My staff have received alarming reports that this is happening in places of detention that they have visited.

Allegations of war crimes and human rights violations have been widespread in the aftermath of the Libyan conflict [JURIST backgrounder]. Earlier this month Middle East rights groups alleged human rights violations [JURIST report] and that all parties involved, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website], committed acts ranging from use of excessive force against protesters to cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners during detention. They also urged support to the Libyan authorities in the implementation of section 12 of the UN Security Council Resolution 2009 [text in PDF]. In September 2011, the Libyan NTC vowed to investigate allegations of human rights after Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate these allegations. In August, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) [advocacy website] reported [text, PDF] Libyan troops used children as human shields [JURIST report] to deter attacks by NATO. That same month, the Libyan Prime Minister Al Baghdad Ali Al-Mahmoudi requested that the UN create a "high-level commission" to investigate alleged human rights abuses [JURIST report] by NATO.

In December of last year, a federal judge blocked [JURIST report] portions of the South Carolina law. Judge Richard Gergel blocked the provision that requires police to check immigration status, finding, "[t]his state-mandated scrutiny is without consideration of federal enforcement priorities and unquestionably vastly expands the persons targeted for immigration enforcement action. He also blocked the provision that outlaws harboring or transporting an illegal immigrant, finding a likelihood of irreparable harm. Similar immigration laws are being challenged throughout the US. Also in December, Alabama and Georgia filed motions in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] seeking to stay proceedings [JURIST report] on challenges to their immigration laws pending the Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States. A challenge is also pending to an immigration law in Utah, and an Indiana law has been blocked [JURIST reports] by a federal judge.

Romanian elections have garnered discontent in recent years. The high court declared [press release, PDF; in Romanian] incumbent Basescu winner of the country's disputed presidential election [JURIST report] in December 2009. The court unanimously rejected a complaint by Basescu's opponent, Social Democrat Mircea Geoana [campaign website, in Romanian], to declare the results of the runoff election invalid because of allegations of voter fraud and bribery. After the first round of elections in November produced no clear winner, Basescu and Geoana faced a runoff election. Official results showed that Basescu had won by a mere 70,000 votes, garnering 50.3 percent of the total votes, and the court ordered election officials to recount [JURIST report] 138,000 voided ballots. In 2007, Basescu was reinstated [JURIST report] after the constitutional court certified results of a referendum where 74 percent of voters rejected Basescu's impeachment [JURIST report].

Earlier this week, convicted Serbian war criminal Radovan Stankovic [JURIST report] was arrested in BiH after being on the run since May 2007 when he escaped from a Bosnian prison. Stankovic was convicted of multiple war crimes [JURIST report] in 2006, including rape, enslavement and torture. Last month, the US extradited Rasema Handanovic [JURIST report], a woman accused of killing Bosnian Croat civilians during the Bosnian Civil War. A number of cases have been opened in relation to the Bosnian Civil War. The Court of BiH confirmed the indictment [JURIST report] of former police officer Bozidar Kuvelja in March for his role in a 1995 massacre. In February, French authorities arrested Milorad Momic [JURIST report] under an international arrest warrant for his suspected involvement in war crimes. Last August, Spanish officials extradited accused Montenegrin war criminal [JURIST report] Veselin Vlahovic, known as the "monster of Grbavica," to Sarajevo.

This is another step to bring more transparency and more accountability to the Illinois court system. The provisions of this new policy keep discretion in the chief circuit judge and the trial judge to assure that a fair and impartial trial is not compromised, yet affords a closer look at the workings of our court system to the public through the eyes of the electronic news media and news photographers.

The presence of cameras and other recording devices in courtrooms has generated substantial controversy both in the US and abroad. In December, the US Senate Judiciary Committee returned to the longstanding debate [JURIST report] over whether to televise the proceedings of the US Supreme Court [official website], including whether Congress, as an equal branch of government, has the authority to require the court to admit cameras. In November, C-SPAN [official website] asked [letter text, PDF] the US Supreme Court to drop its ban on cameras in the courtroom when it hears arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [JURIST news archive]. In September, the UK Justice Secretary announced [JURIST report] that cameras would be allowed in UK and Wales courts in an effort to increase judicial transparency. In October 2010, a coalition of 37 public interest groups urged the US Senate to permit television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings [JURIST report]. In September 2010, US Federal judges reached an agreement [JURIST report] on a pilot project to allow certain civil trials to be televised.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] continues to prosecute former high-ranking Yugoslav army soldiers for war crimes. Last September, ex-Yugoslav army chief Momcilo Perisic [ICTY profile, PDF; JURIST news archive] was convicted for crimes against humanity and war crimes [JURIST report], committed during the wars in Bosnia and Croatia and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Former Yugoslav National Army officer Miroslav Radic [Trial Watch backgrounder], was acquitted of war crimes charges [JURIST report] brought by the ICTY in 2007. In 2009, Radic sued Serbia [JURIST report] for the four years and six months he was detained during his trial by the ICTY.

Last week, the UN expressed concern [JURIST report] over Cambodia's decision to not appoint the reserve judge Kasper-Ansermet to the ECCC after the previous judge, Siegfried Blunk, resigned [JURIST report] in October. ECCC judges, including Blunk, have been criticized for allegedly failing to conduct impartial investigations. Cambodia has argued that the trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders is a Cambodian issue and should not be a matter of international concern. Also in October, defense lawyers for accused Khmer Rouge leader Nuon Chea filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile] for interfering with the UN-backed war crimes tribunal. Nuon's lawyers accused the prime minister of criminally conspiring to block some of the defense witnesses from testifying [Reuters report] and consequently interfering with his right to a fair trial. In September, the ECCC ordered the trials be split into a series of smaller trials [JURIST report].

This week the Maldives Minister of Foreign Affairs [official website] requested the UN help resolve [JURIST report] the situation, which they are calling a judicial system failure. The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed [official website] defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoom [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption. The new constitution was drafted in response to international criticism [AI report, PDF] of 2003 government actions against protesters of prison conditions in the country.

Federal courts have been cracking down on state medical marijuana laws recently. Earlier this month the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] was granted a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit brought by the Arizona Governor. The Governor believed an Arizona medical marijuana law placed lawmakers at risk of federal prosecution for implementing the law. In October, medical marijuana advocates filed suit [JURIST report] in a California federal court seeking relief against the federal government for its crackdown on marijuana dispensaries in the state. In June, a judge in Ontario stayed a ruling [JURIST report] finding that the country's marijuana laws were unconstitutional. In January 2010, the California Supreme Court [official website] overturned [JURIST report] a 2003 law limiting the amount of marijuana that may be possessed under the state's Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) [materials].

The ICTY is currently preparing for the trial of former Serbian general and alleged war criminal Ratko Mladic [ICTY backgrounder, PDF; JURIST news archive]. The trial is set to begin in March [JURIST report]. The ICTY had previously tried [JURIST news archive] former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive], but ended that trial after his death [JURIST report] in custody in 2006.

Last week, a report from Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called on [JURIST report] Egypt's newly elected parliament to pursue an agenda to reform nine areas of Egyptian law that impede freedom and restrict rights. Among the suggestions was a call to lift the state of emergency. Earlier in January, Egyptian prosecutors began their case [JURIST report] against Mubarak, who is facing charges of complicity by ordering the killings of at least 840 protesters [JURIST report] during the revolution. Some commentators have recommended [JURIST op-ed] that the SCAF separate its economic and political power to allow for greater prosperity in Egypt.

The district court failed to address appellants' challenges under the Minnesota Constitution. A proper analysis is necessary especially because the Minnesota rational-basis test for determining whether equal-protection rights have been violated is more stringent than the federal test. Additionally, the supreme court in Baker specifically stated that there was no guidance from decisions from the United States Supreme Court regarding whether the right to marry if a fundamental right of all persons and whether restricting marriage based solely on sex is "irrational and invidiously discriminatory."

It remains unclear if the court of appeals' decision to remand the case to the district court will help or hurt the plaintiffs. Phil Duran, the legal director of the gay rights group OutFront Minnesota [official website] declared [press release] that the decision could be a setback for same-sex marriage rights because the case could eventually be decided by the deeply conservative Minnesota Supreme Court. Douglas Benson, one of the plaintiffs in the case, took a more optimistic view, saying that the court of appeals' decision gives the plaintiffs momentum going forward in court [Minneapolis Star Tribune report]. Same-sex marriage is a particularly contentious issue in Minnesota this year, as voters will decide in November whether to accept or reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [HF 1613 text; JURIST report].

The total number of individuals sentenced to death in Iraq since 2004 is believed to stand at more than 1,200. The total number actually executed since then is not known, although at least 63 individuals are thought to have been executed in the past two months alone (since 16 November). There are around 48 crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed in Iraq, including a number of non-fatal crimes such as—under certain circumstances—damage to public property.

In 2007, the UN General Assembly [official website] approved a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium [JURIST report] on the death penalty. The resolution was reaffirmed twice by resolutions A/RES/63/168 and A/RES/65/206 [materials] in 2008 and 2010, respectively. It was criticized by countries [JURIST report] that supported the use of death penalty [JURIST news archive], alleging that the resolution would infringe nations' sovereignty. Iraq, one of the countries that did not implement the moratorium, has been subject to criticism for violating various human rights including unlawfully detaining and repeatedly torturing thousands of detainees without warrants [JURIST reports].

Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for those who believe that the courts should protect American citizens from torture by their own government. By dismissing this lawsuit, the appeals court handed the government a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of a US citizen on US soil. This impunity is not only anathema to a democracy governed by laws, but contrary to history's lesson that in times of fear our values are a strength, not a hindrance.

This is the latest case involving the liability of government officials for their actions in the US War on Terror. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a torture lawsuit against former secretary Rumsfeld by two American citizens may proceed under the cause of action recognized in Bivens. Also in August, the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] allowed a lawsuit to be brought against Rumsfeld [JURIST report] by a former US military contractor who alleged that he had been tortured while imprisoned in Iraq. By contrast, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] in 2011 upheld the dismissal [JURIST report] of a suit against Rumsfeld brought by Afghan and Iraqi citizens who claimed that they were illegally detained and tortured. Also in 2011, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled that former US attorney general John Ashcroft [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was immune from a suit [JURIST report] involving allegedly unconstitutional witness detention, and that he should be entitled to absolute immunity where there is no clear violation of established law.

While the Canadian government chose to pursue deportation of Mugesera, they have the authority under the country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act [text, PDF] to prosecute individuals living in Canada who are suspected of involvement with genocide. In November 2009, Canadian prosecutors announced they were charging [JURIST report] Rwandan national Jacques Mungwarere under the law for his potential involvement in the Rwandan genocide. Mungwarere was the second man charged under the act. The first man charged under the act was Desire Munyaneza. In October 2009, Munyaneza was sentenced to life imprisonment [JURIST report] for war crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide. Munyaneza was convicted [JURIST report] in May 2009 of seven counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes under the act. He was arrested [JURIST report] in 2005 by Canadian police after a five-year investigation. The trial, which was briefly postponed [JURIST report] after Munyaneza was beaten by a fellow prison inmate, lasted two years and included evidence from multiple nations. International legal observers expect Munyaneza's trial to set precedent for future war crimes litigation.

Wuterich was denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] his charges in 2010. His trial was postponed in 2008 [JURIST report] after a judge decided to throw out a subpoena for unaired footage of a CBS interview with Wuterich that prosecutors believed could have proven his guilt. Charges against Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani [JURIST news archive] were dropped [JURIST report] in June 2008, the same month 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson [JURIST news archive] was acquitted [JURIST report] of all charges against him relating to the incident. In August 2007, charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone were dismissed [JURIST report]. In 2007, an official report on the Haditha incident by US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell showed that there was "serious misconduct" [JURIST report] at all levels of the chain of command.

Last March, Garzon filed a petition [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging the 2010 abuse of power charges, for which he was suspended [JURIST report]. His petition follows the September 2010 decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court, which unanimously confirmed [JURIST report] a lower court order that Garzon abused his power and must face trial. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. He is also facing two other trials, including one trial that began last week involving charges that he ordered the placement of wiretaps in jailhouses [JURIST report] to record conversations between inmates and their lawyers. The third trial, which has not started, involves bribery charges over money Garzon received for seminars conducted in the US.

The Armenian genocide is also a contentious issue in US law and politics. In November the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] decided to revisit a case [JURIST report] to determine whether a California law declaring Armenian genocide in Turkey conflicts with US foreign policy. In August 2010 a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] unanimously dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the exclusion of materials questioning the Armenian genocide from a school curriculum. In March 2010 the Obama administration announced its opposition to a resolution [JURIST report] labeling the World War I-era killings as genocide. The announcement came after the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the resolution [JURIST report] by a vote of 23-22. Erdogan condemned the resolution, and the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to the US.

Stankovic was serving a 20-year prison sentence when he escaped [JURIST report]. He was the first prisoner to be transferred [JURIST report] from the ICTY to the State Court of BiH [official website], and was also the first transferee to be convicted there. He was convicted of war crimes committed in Foca, Bosnia, from 1992 to 1995.

The Act defines the term "sex offender" as including these pre-Act offenders. ... It says that "[a] sex offender shall register." ... And it further says that "[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter ...." ... In our view, these provisions, read together, mean that the Act's registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General specifies that they do apply.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Juvenile Male [JURIST report] that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had no authority to rule that the requirements SORNA violate the ex post facto [Cornell LII backgrounder] clause of the Constitution when applied to juveniles adjudicated as delinquent before SORNA's enactment. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Carr v. United States [JURIST report] that the failure to register provision of SORNA does not apply retroactively to offenses occurring before SORNA's enactment.

The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption.

While fully recognizing the right and duty of states to protect their people and territory from terrorist acts, I remind all branches of the US Government of their obligation under international human rights law to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty can have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed before a court. Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted. Otherwise, they must be released.

January marks the tenth anniversary of operations at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report]. The first detainees arrived in 2002 as "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror declared after 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder]. There are currently 171 detainees [NYT docket] being held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration originally wanted suspected terrorists to be tried before a federal civilian court, but changed its position after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST reports] barring the transfer of detainees to the US despite repeated appeals from rights groups to utilize civilian courts over military commissions. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] stated that the main goal of the administration is to hold the people responsible [JURIST report] for 9/11 accountable in the most effective way possible.

The FMIA regulates slaughterhouses' handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process. California's §599f endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place—except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November and seemed skeptical that there was no overlap in the purposes of the two laws. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case in June. The provisions of the California law were considered and expressly rejected by federal regulators because they eliminate certain federally required ante-mortem inspection of possibly diseased animals. The California legislature enacted the law to control the treatment of nonambulatory animals after a 2008 undercover video [warning: graphic content] released by the Humane Society of the United States [advocacy website] showed slaughterhouse employees dragging, kicking and applying electric shocks to sick animals to move them.

In sum, reasonable police officers in petitioners' position could have come to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permitted them to enter the Huff residence if there was an objectively reasonable basis for fearing that violence was imminent. And a reasonable officer could have come to such a conclusion based on the facts...

The court also upheld the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment in its 2009 ruling in Michigan v. Fisher [opinion, PDF], which reversed and remanded [JURIST report] a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that found officers violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home. The case arose when officers called to the home of Jeremy Fisher found a dented vehicle outside the home and blood on the vehicle and on clothing inside the vehicle. They observed Fisher through a window throwing objects and one of the officers entered the home, at which time Fisher pointed a rifle at the officer. Fisher was charged with assault and possession of a firearm during a felony and sought to suppress the officer's statement, arguing that the entry was illegal.

Last month, the Croatian government signed a treaty [JURIST report] to finalize its EU accession. The signing ceremony consisted of speeches by leaders of the EU and Croatia, as well as signing of the treaty by the 27 other member countries. The EU gave final approval [JURIST report] to Croatian membership in June after six years of negotiations. The EU suspended accession talks [JURIST report] in 2005 when it felt Croatia was not cooperating fully with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia investigations into war crimes against its former military officers.

It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November. The government argued that under US v. Knotts [opinion text], a GPS tracker is as permissible as monitoring a car by using a beeper inside the car for tracking purposes. Respondent's attorney argued that placing the GPS in the car created a seizure of the vehicle. JURIST Guest Columnist Jim Harper [professional profile], Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, argued in a piece for JURIST that the Supreme Court should use US v. Jones as an opportunity to reaffirm Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, particularly in light of technological advances.

With respect to the crimes charged and based on the evidence placed before it, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor has established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution were committed. These crimes resulted in the death of hundreds, and the displacement of thousands of civilians from Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills.

In October, defense counsel for three Kenyan leaders charged in the ICC with inciting violence [JURIST report] after the December 2007 Kenyan elections argued that prosecutors had not fully investigated evidence that they planned to present at trial. In June, Kenyan Attorney General Amos Wako appealed [JURIST report] the refusal by the ICC to transfer the cases to Kenyan jurisdiction. In response, the ICC called for a hearing "to properly assess the desirability and feasibility of conducting the confirmation of charges hearings in the Republic of Kenya." In March, The ICC issued summons [JURIST report] for six Kenyans suspected of inciting the 2007-2008 post-election violence.

Western policy towards Arab countries traditionally has been one of containment, backing an array of Arab autocrats to guarantee "stability" in the region even as democracy spread in other parts of the world. Human Rights Watch said the reasons so many democratic governments make an "Arab exception" include fear of political Islam and terrorism, the need to keep oil supplies flowing, and a longstanding policy of reliance on autocracies to maintain Arab Israeli peace and to help stifle migration to Europe.

Although much of the report focused on last year's Middle Eastern uprisings, there were several other criticisms leveled at various nations. HRW reprimanded the US, the UK [HRW reports] and other Western nations for disavowing torture programs while castigating Middle Eastern nations for similar actions. In addition to criticizing the US illegal detention programs, the report also pointed to extreme prisoner rights abuses and a high level of incarceration of illegal immigrants and racial minorities. European nations were reprimanded for a number of human rights abuses, including France [HRW report] expelling Roma immigrants [JURIST comment], Hungary's controversial media law [JURIST report] and Italy's rejection of Tunisian refugees [JURIST report]. Belarus [HRW report] was highlighted for its many human rights violations [JURIST news archive], including voter fraud, taking of political prisoners, stifling of the Internet and dissent and its continued use of the death penalty. The report praised Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia [HRW reports] for holding war criminals accountable by supporting the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website], especially in the arrest of Ratko Mladic [JURIST news archive]. Uzbekistan and Russia [HRW reports] received the sharpest rebukes for European human rights violations, with HRW especially noting that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's future run for president in Russia is "a foregone conclusion, and cast[s] a shadow over the prospect of much-needed political reform." HRW also commented that the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko [JURIST news archive] has shaken the faith in the judiciary of Ukraine, while in Turkey [HRW reports] the biggest issue was their negligence in addressing the needs of the Kurdish people.

Africa's human rights record continues to disturb HRW, with much of the focus on the Ivory Coast [HRW report] and its violent presidential election [JURIST news archive] last year that resulted in the death of approximately 3,000 people. The report praised the nation for attempting to return to the rule of law by holding legislative elections in December and allowing International Criminal Court intervention [JURIST report]. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) [HRW report] received criticism for continued violence, especially in the wake of a recent presidential election [JURIST report], but was commended for its attempts to prosecute perpetrators of rape as a military tactic, although HRW would like to see more progress in apprehending the actors in a mass rape of 387 DRC citizens [JURIST report]. HRW had high praise for Kenya [HRW report] and their continuous reforms since violence in the nation several years ago. Rwanda [HRW report] was also praised for reforms, although the report noted that the freedom of expression is "severely restricted" in the nation, and that the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] is mixed, "with a number of positive achievements—including the swift work of the courts, the extensive participation of the local population, and the revelation of information about events during 1994—alongside violations of the right to a fair trial, intimidation of witnesses, corruption of judges and other parties, and political interference." Somalia [HRW report] and its civil war was surveyed, with HRW noting the nation's continued widespread abuse of children [JURIST report], including the use of child soldiers. Uganda [HRW report] was condemned for an unstable judiciary, a lack of free speech rights and violence against LGBT citizens [JURIST reports].

South America and Mexico's human rights violations continue to be largely in the realms of free speech and judicial and martial independence from corruption. Argentina [HRW report], although praised for successful prosecutions of war criminals [JURIST report], was chided for poor prison conditions and limitations on women's reproductive rights. The report decried rampant violence [JURIST report] in Colombia [HRW report], while also criticizing the US government's attempts at aid as being largely unchecked: "Thirty percent of US military aid is subject to human rights conditions, which the US Department of State has not enforced. In September 2011 the State Department certified that Colombia was meeting human rights conditions." The report also questioned the effectiveness of a recent trade agreement [JURIST report] between the US and Colombia. Cuba [HRW report], which the report declared "the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent," was chastised for its record of arbitrary arrests, detentions and taking of political prisoners, including US citizen Alan Gross [JURIST report]. The report noted that Haiti [HRW report], still reeling from its 2010 earthquake, not only has to restore the country's basic infrastructure and health needs, but also continues a lamentable human rights record, and expressed concern that the nation's judiciary could not handle the prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier [JURIST report]. Venezuela [HRW report] and President Hugo Chavez [BBC profile] were criticized for a "political takeover" of the nation's Supreme Court, which recently ruled that an opposition candidate was ineligible to run for president [JURIST report]. Finally, Mexico and its security forces [JURIST report] reactions to increasing homicides concerned HRW.

Finally, many Asian countries reportedly continue to struggle with basic rights of political expression. The report doled out strong criticism for Afghanistan [HRW report] and its continued support of war lords as well as "flawed parliamentary elections." HRW commanded Bangladesh [HRW report] to end its policies of torture and extrajudicial killings and called into question the competency of recent war crimes trials [JURIST reports]. The report chastised Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile] of Cambodia [HRW report] for undermining the nation's Khmer Rouge trials [JURIST report]. China and North Korea [HRW report] were named as especially egregious violators of human rights, especially freedom of speech, but reporting in the private nations remains difficult. India and the Philippines [HRW reports], often seen as relatively stable democracies, were criticized for corruption and deficits in the rule of law, as well as troubling records on women's rights. HRW labeled Pakistan [HRW report] as having a "disastrous year," rife with civil discontent, military and guerrilla attacks on citizens and persecution of religious minorities. Sri Lanka [HRW report] continues to rebound from a civil war, although HRW is concerned that the government's investigations of war crimes [JURIST report] has not been credible enough. Finally, Vietnam [HRW report] and its continued suppression of bloggers, rights activists [JURIST reports] and journalists was denounced, and HRW attributed the recent obstruction of media to "Vietnamese government concerns that pro-democracy ... movement might reach Asia."

The Guatemalan civil war resulted in more than 200,000 deaths, mostly among Guatemala's large indigenous Mayan population. According to a UN report [text, in Spanish] released in 1999, the military was responsible for 95 percent of those deaths. In response to these violations, the Guatemalan government founded the National Compensation Program (PNR) in 2003 to deal with claims by civilians affected by the civil war. The PNR, after setting up its administrative structure, has begun to use its $40 million budget to work through a backlog of more than 98,000 civilian complaints. Four former soldiers and two former police officers [JURIST reports] have already been convicted in relation to these crime. Spain attempted to extradite Rios Montt [JURIST report] in 2008, but failed due to a lack of jurisdiction.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] has spoken out against granting immunity [JURIST report] because of concerns that it might be too broad. In April, Saleh agreed to step down [JURIST report] in exchange for immunity. The UN is investigating human rights violations [JURIST report] in Yemen in relation to its handling of pro-democracy protests. Saleh and his party, the General People's Congress (GPC), had caused the political tensions that led to the protests through their attempts to remove presidential term limits [JURIST report] and expand their political power.

In October, defense lawyers for accused Khmer Rouge leader Nuon Chea filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile] for interfering with the UN-backed war crimes tribunal. Nuon's lawyers accused the prime minister of criminally conspiring to block some of the defense witnesses from testifying [Reuters report] and consequently interfering with his right to a fair trial. In September, the ECCC ordered the trials be split into a series of smaller trials [JURIST report]. The ECCC said that the separation of trials will allow the tribunal to deliberate more quickly [press release] in the case against the elderly defendants. The first trial will focus on the beginning two phases of population movement and allegations of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution not on religious grounds and forced disappearances associated with the first phases of population movement. Subsequent trials will focus on the third phase of population movement, genocide, persecution based on religious grounds and violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 [ICRC backgrounder].

The ICC has been heavily involved in prosecuting crimes against humanity in Africa. In December the ICC urged international cooperation [JURIST report] in executing arrest warrants for suspects accused in the Darfur conflict [ICC materials]. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir [ICC materials; JURIST news archive] is currently at-large and faces seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as three charges of genocide [JURIST reports]. Also in December, former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo [BBC profile] was brought into custody and appeared before the ICC [JURIST report] to face charges of murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and rape and other forms of sexual violence allegedly committed during 2010's post-election violence [JURIST news archive] in the Ivory Coast. In November the ICC indicated that it would allow Libya to conduct the trial of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi [JURIST report], son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile], despite concerns over whether he could possibly receive a fair trial. In August the ICC concluded its first war crimes trial [JURIST report], the trial of Democratic Republic of Congo militia leader Thomas Lubanga [ICC materials; BBC profile] for enlisting child soldiers and committing large-scale human rights abuses in Congo's violent Ituri district. In June Kenya appealed [JURIST report] the ICC's refusal to transfer two cases against high-ranking Kenyan officials for their alleged involvement in the violence after the 2007 Kenyan elections [JURIST news archive]. The Kenyan men facing charges in the ICC, the "Ocampo Six," are accused of inciting violence after the 2007 Kenyan elections which resulted in more than 1,100 deaths, 3,500 injuries, hundreds of rapes and up to 600,000 individuals being forcibly displaced.

The judgment against Chevron was upheld in January by a three-judge panel of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. The $18 billion fine, one of the largest in the history of environmental contamination suits, was originally set at $8.6 billion [JURIST report] but was more than doubled for Chevron's refusal to pay "moral reparations" to the Ecuadorian government, as required by the original ruling. The Amazon Defense Coalition [advocacy website], plaintiffs in the suit, have responded that the first judgment was a reaffirmation of how Chevron's greed and criminal misconduct in dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the river has led to death and disease. Damages were initially awarded in February by the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios which found that Texaco, which was acquired by Chevron in 2001, polluted large areas of the country's rain forest.

We note that our decision does not signal the death knell of the City's efforts, if it wishes to pursue them, to restrict access of registered sex offenders to the City's public libraries. ... Like the Supreme Court, we "generally will not strike down a governmental action" for failure to leave open adequate alternative channels of communication "unless the government enactment will foreclose an entire medium of public expression across the landscape of a particular community or setting.

US courts have seen numerous constitutional challenges to laws placing restrictions on sex offenders. In August, the American Civil Liberties filed a complaint in federal court seeking to block a Louisiana law that limits Internet use for registered sex offenders [JURIST report]. In May 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that mentally ill sex offenders may be civilly committed [JURIST report] beyond their prison sentences. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in May 2009 that local ordinances prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living near schools, playgrounds, and other public areas were preempted by the state's Megan's Law and, therefore, invalid. In March 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a South Carolina law requiring convicted first degree sex offenders to submit to a DNA test and pay $250 in processing fees prior to their release does not violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution [JURIST report]. A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled in February 2009 that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), which makes it a federal crime for a sex offender to attempt to move to another state [JURIST report] while failing to register in a nationwide database, is unconstitutional.

The ramifications of this change on the people of DPRK, and on neighboring countries will only unfold in the comings days and months. However, I am hoping that the new leadership in DPRK will use the change in leadership as an opportunity to engage with the international community and secure global confidence. The world is eagerly looking at DPRK to see what lies ahead, and hoping that the authorities will take measures to improve the human rights situation of the people of DPRK.

Darusman criticized North Korea's human rights record in November, focusing on the treatment of prisoners and echoing a UN General Assembly [official website] resolution [text] concerning the country's human rights conditions. In March 2010 the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] adopted a resolution condemning [JURIST report] North Korea for human rights abuses. Earlier in March, the UN Special Rapporteur for North Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn reported to the UNHRC that North Korean human rights situation was continuing to deteriorate [JURIST report]. This report came after Muntarbhorn's previous criticism, in October, 2009, of North Korea's "abysmal" [JURIST report] and ongoing human rights violations, alleging that the authoritarian government was responsible for various abuses, including torture, public executions, extensive surveillance, media censorship, women's rights violations and widespread hunger.

Voting on the original bill was postponed for the third time [Yemen Times report] Wednesday. One of the reasons for the delays was opposition to the clause granting blanket immunity for government officials who worked under Saleh. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay opposes immunity [JURIST report] for Saleh and his officials, saying the victims deserve justice and will not get it if the law is passed. Pillay advocated for an investigation [JURIST report] of Saleh and his administration in early December for alleged human rights violations. Saleh agreed to step down [JURIST report from his office in April amidst pressure from protesters, and the immunity law was a condition of his promise.

The trial was initiated after a spokesperson for the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti [official website] announced [JURIST report] in 2010 that it launched an investigation into the shootings. Haiti faced difficulty in maintaining [JURIST report] law and order during the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake. Numerous prison inmates of the main prison in the capital Port-au-Prince escaped [JURIST report] when it collapsed during the earthquake.

According to the 2010 census, Texas' population grew by 4.3 million, which gave it four more seats in the US House of Representatives. The Republican-controlled state legislature redrew the congressional districts in a way that challengers claim would make it more likely for Republicans to win those new seats. The plan must be approved by either the Justice Department or a federal court under Section 5 of the VRA, and the Obama administration has objected to the plan. In the meantime, the federal court in Texas drew an "interim map" for use in the 2012 election. That is the map that is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court. The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the interim maps, and the court heard arguments [JURIST reports] in the case last week.

Germany reopened investigations into former Nazi death camp guards in October, which stemmed from the conviction of John Demjanjuk [JURIST reports], a former guard at a camp in Poland who was deported to Germany to stand trial for his alleged Nazi crimes. Nazi prosecution is still ongoing, despite the ages of the accused. Alleged Nazi Sandor Kepiro died while he awaited an appeal [JURIST report] on his acquittal on war crimes charges. Another convicted Nazi commander, Josef Scheungraber, is likely not able to serve [JURIST report] his life sentence due to his mental health issues.

The charges unsealed today allege a corrupt circle of friends who formed a criminal club whose purpose was profit and whose members regularly bartered lucrative inside information so their respective funds could illegally profit. And profit they allegedly did—to the tune of more than $61 million on illegal trades of a single stock—much of it coming in a $53 million short trade. Here, The Big Short was The Big Illegal Short. We have demonstrated through our prosecutions that insider trading is rampant and has its own social network, a network we intend to dismantle. We will be unrelenting in our pursuit of those who think they are above the law.

US prosecutors and the FBI have targeted insider trading in the investment industry in recent years. Raj Rajaratnam, co-founder of the Galleon Group, was convicted of 14 counts of insider trading [JURIST report] in May and sentenced to 11 years in federal prison [JURIST report] in one of the largest hedge fund insider trading cases in US history. Several other defendants have pleaded guilty in connection with the case. Former hedge fund consultant Danielle Chiesi pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in January. Former IBM senior vice president Robert Moffat was sentenced to six months in prison in September 2010 and ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his role in the scheme after pleading guilty [JURIST reports] in March 2010. Former Intel Capital executive Rajiv Goel pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to insider trading charges in February 2010. Rajaratnam, Chiesi, Goel and Moffat were arrested in October 2009 and charged [complaint, PDF] along with two other individuals and two business entities with insider trading. The complaint alleged that the individuals provided Galleon Group and another hedge fund with material nonpublic information about several corporations upon which the funds traded, generating $25 million in illicit gain. Rajaratnam and Chiesi originally pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] in December 2009 after being indicted for insider trading.

The verdict against these five people confirms that Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law is being used to crush independent reporting and peaceful political dissent. The Ethiopian courts are complicit in this political witch-hunt. Getting a fair trial in a political case in Ethiopia today may be impossible. The prosecution should drop the charges against these defendants and instead investigate their allegations of torture.

Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law has faced consistent criticism since being passed [JURIST report] in 2009. Most recently, in December, two Swedish journalists were convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison for supporting terrorism and entering Ethiopia illegally. There, the court did not find credible the journalists' argument that they entered into the country with a terrorist group in order to gain access to an area restricted to journalists. In response, HRW argued that the law is being used to suppress journalists [JURIST report], that the trial was unfair and that the Swedes should be released immediately [press release]. Similarly, in August, JURIST guest columnist and former executive director Abigail Salisbury argued that the Ethiopian government is using the law to suppress journalists and opposition groups in order to maintain its hold on power [JURIST op-ed]. In July, HRW called on the government to stop using the law to repress free speech [JURIST report].

These proceedings reflect an ongoing struggle between the government and the courts in Pakistan. Last month, the Supreme Court formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo [JURIST report] sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Zardari and former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. In October 2011, the Supreme Court issued a judgment urging political parties to stop financing criminal groups [JURIST report] responsible for increased violence in the city of Karachi. The decision stated that militant groups have gained strength because of support from local political groups and order the Pakistani government to help address the corruption. The Court struck down the NRO in 2009, which was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in 2007.

This is the third time in a month that a dissident has been sentenced for subversion. Chen Xi was sentenced to 10 years [JURIST report] in late December for publishing political essays online. In that same month a court sentenced Chen Wei to nine years in prison [JURIST report]. The sentence came as a response to charges that stemmed from written essays critical of the Communist Party, which Chen published on overseas Chinese websites, avoiding the national Internet censorship firewalls. Earlier this week dissident Zhu Yufu was charged with subversion for writing and publishing a poem on the internet that urged people to act in support of freedom [BBC report]. Two longer sentences for subversion convictions belong to Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who has been serving an 11-year sentence [JURIST report] since 2009, and Liu Xianbin, who was jailed for 10 years in March 2011.

The consultations the Panel undertook were a reminder of how far Australia has come since the nation's legal and political foundations were laid down in the late nineteenth century. Then, in line with the values of the times, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were excluded from the deliberations that led to the adoption of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution excluded them. It was not until two-thirds of the way through the nation's first century that the exclusion was removed and the Constitution shifted closer to a position of neutrality. The logical next step is to achieve full inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution by recognising their continuing cultures, languages and heritage as an important part of our nation and by removing the outdated notion of race.

In recent years, the Australian government has recognized the long history of discrimination and disadvantage among its native citizens, although its efforts have not always resulted in better conditions. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard [official website] announced a national referendum [JURIST report] that sought to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Australian Constitution in November 2010. In August 2010, Amnesty International Australia (AIA) criticized the racial discrimination [JURIST report] that exists in Australia, which, according to AIA, violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [texts]. In June 2010, the Australian government reinstated its previously suspended Racial Discrimination Act [JURIST report] in the Northern Territory, which allows governmental authorities to regulate how welfare money is spent by the indigenous people of the country. In March 2010, UN special rapporteur James Anaya condemned the law [press release], calling it problematic from a human rights point of view. Australia endorsed [JURIST report] the aforementioned Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which reversed the position held by previous Australian governments. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd championed the cause of improved living conditions for and relations with Australia's indigenous population during his term in office, and offered and official apology on behalf of the federal government in February 2008 for past mistreatment to the nation's indigenous population.

Allegations of war crimes and human rights violations have been widespread during the conflict in Libya. In September the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) [official website] vowed to investigate allegations of human rights after Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] published a report [JURIST report] alleging that both sides of the Libya conflict are responsible for human rights abuses and warning the NTC to act quickly to investigate these allegations. In August, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) [advocacy website] reported [text, PDF] Libyan troops used children as human shields [JURIST report] to deter attacks by NATO. Also in August, Libyan Prime Minister Al Baghdad Ali Al-Mahmoudi requested that the UN create a "high-level commission" to investigate alleged human rights abuses [JURIST report] by NATO.

[This committee] has long questioned the legitimacy of legislative intervention in the field of history—whereas the adoption of resolutions and organizing commemorations were probably more appropriate ways to express the solidarity of the Nation with the suffering of the victims. It considered that the creation of a criminal offense ... recognized by law incur[s] a high risk of being at odds with several principles recognized in our Constitution—in particular the principle of legality of crimes and sentences, the principle of freedom of opinion and expression and the principle of freedom of research.

The Armenian genocide is also a contentious issue in US law and politics. In November the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] decided to revisit a case [JURIST report] to determine whether a California law declaring Armenian genocide in Turkey conflicts with US foreign policy. In August 2010 a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] unanimously dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the exclusion of materials questioning the Armenian genocide from a school curriculum. In March 2010 the Obama administration announced its opposition to a resolution [JURIST report] labeling the World War I-era killings as genocide. The announcement came after the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the resolution [JURIST report] by a vote of 23-22. Erdogan condemned the resolution, and the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to the US.

The court also considered Vartelas v. Holder [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], to decide 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. Vartelas' attorney argued that the statute does not mandate retroactive application explicitly, as well as the relative fairness of the statute: "Covered lawful permanent residents could not visit their parents abroad without being forced to abandon their children here. They would be removed from the country or else confined here. Either way, they would lose an ability they had under pre-IIRIRA law based on pre-IIRIRA offenses. Thus applying the subsection to them would be impermissibly retroactive." The attorney for the Solicitor General argued that the law applied regardless, because Vartelas took the trip after the law was promulgated, and thus had constructive notice. Chief Justice John Roberts argued with the Solicitor General's lawyer about the peculiarity of the law itself: "Counsel, I have to—I just don't understand this statute. This is somebody we would not allow into the country. And yet the only thing we say is: You can't leave. I just don't understand how that—how that works. [...] [A]nd I understand that there is a limitation on actually deporting the person. But here I think the one thing you want the person to do is leave. Maybe for a particular event, but maybe he will decide to stay in Greece if once he's there for the—but it seems very odd to say: We are going to show you how much we don't want you here; we are not going to let you leave."

In the unusual circumstances of this case, principles of agency law and fundamental fairness point to the same conclusion: There was indeed cause to excuse Maples' procedural default. Through no fault of his own, Maples lacked the assistance of any authorized attorney during the 42 days Alabama allows for noticing an appeal from a trial court's denial of post conviction relief. As just observed, he had no reason to suspect that, in reality, he had been reduced to pro se status. Maples was disarmed by extraordinary circumstances quite beyond his control.

An Alabama trial court had dismissed Maples' petition for post-conviction relief and sent notice of this ruling to his out-of-state attorneys, but the notice was returned to the court unopened because the attorneys had changed firms. The court's clerk did not attempt to notify his attorneys again. The clerk did, however, notify Maples' in-state attorney who neither acted nor notified the attorneys who were more directly involved in his case. Maples was convicted of capital murder for killing two people after a night of drinking. He had argued his counsel was ineffective because it failed to present evidence of his intoxication and his drug history, which he believed would have mitigated his sentence. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in October.

Overtly sectarian prayer does not belong in a government meeting. This is the same conclusion that was reached by three separate lower courts who heard our case. The law is now settled, and we are very happy that nobody in Forsyth County will feel like a second-class citizen because of what they believe.

Public prayer has generated a substantial amount of controversy recently. In August, JURIST contributor John Whitehead noted [JURIST op-ed] that the Fourth Circuit's decision in Joyner contradicted precedent establishing that public officials beginning meetings with a prayer is constitutionally permissible. In April the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the National Day of Prayer (NDP) [official website]. The Seventh Circuit's decision overturned a ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] that the NDP was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Congress determined that U.S. interests were best served by our full participation in the dominant system of international copyright protection. Those interests include ensuring exemplary compliance with our international obligations, securing greater protection for U. S. authors abroad, and remedying unequal treatment of foreign authors. The judgment § 514 expresses lies well within the ken of the political branches.

In December 2010, the Supreme Court split 4-4 [JURIST report] on the issue of copyright protection for imported goods. The case presented the question of whether the first-sale doctrine [17 USC § 109(a)], which provides that the owner of any particular copy "lawfully made under this title" may resell that good without the authority of the copyright holder, applies to imported goods manufactured abroad. Because of the split, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods was affirmed, although the decision does not establish controlling precedent.

We recognise that it is not practical for the Inquiry to continue for an indefinite period to wait for the conclusion of the police investigations. The Inquiry has, however, already done a large amount of preliminary work, including the collation of many documents from Government departments and the Security and Intelligence Agencies. We welcome therefore the opportunity to bring together the work we have done to date. The Inquiry will therefore produce a report of our work, highlighting themes which might be subject to further examination.

Last week, the MPS announced that there was not enough evidence to try British intelligence agents [JURIST report] for alleged complicity in the torture of two detainees. They indicated that they could reopen the cases if new information surfaced through the Detainee Inquiry. In the joint statement [text] of the MPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions [official website], they also announced the commencement of two new investigations of torture allegations in Libya. Last March former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] said in a BBC documentary that the UK gave "tacit approval" for torture [JURIST report] of terror suspects. In July 2010 UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced the creation of the Detainee Inquiry [JURIST report], after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the UK government to investigate torture allegations and reaffirm its support for human rights.

Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo have previously raised concerns with practices used at the prison. Last November, lawyers complained specifically about the infringement on attorney-client privilege [JURIST report] in a letter directed to the attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs. The attorneys alleged that those working with the JTF-GTMO seize, open, interpret, read and review attorney-client privileged communications, actions which the attorneys argued are unlawful. Also in November J. Wells Dixon, Senior Staff Attorney for the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote that there is a systematic dysfunction within the bureaucracy of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that impacts the capability of attorneys to adequately represent their clients: "Having traveled to Guantanamo numerous times over many years to meet with men detained there, it comes as no surprise to me that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy of Guantanamo, ordered a disruptive and ultimately needless examination of legal papers and correspondence kept by detainees, including materials clearly marked as privileged." This month marks the tenth anniversary of detention operations at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report].

The villagization program is taking place in areas where significant land investment is planned and/or occurring. The Ethiopian federal government has consistently denied that the villagization process in Gambella is connected to the leasing of large areas of land for commercial agriculture, but villagers have been told by local government officials that this is an underlying reason for their displacement.

This is not the first time HRW has criticized the actions of the Ethiopian government. Late last year, HRW released a statement criticizing an Ethiopian anti-terrorism law [JURIST report] as "fundamentally flawed and being used to repress legitimate reporting." HRW made the statement after two Swedish journalists were convicted [Bloomberg report] of supporting terrorism under Ethiopia's Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009 [text]. Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law has faced ongoing criticism since it was passed [JURIST report] in 2009. In August, JURIST guest columnist and former executive director Abigail Salisbury argued that the government is using the law to suppress journalists and opposition groups in order to maintain its hold on power [JURIST op-ed]. In July, HRW called on the Ethiopian government to stop using the law to repress free speech [JURIST report].

The question presented is whether Congress' provision for private actions to enforce the TCPA renders state courts the exclusive arbiters of such actions. We have long recognized that "[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action." ... Beyond doubt, the TCPA is a federal law that both creates the claim Mims has brought and supplies the substantive rules that will govern the case. We find no convincing reason to read into the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts any barrier to the U. S. district courts' exercise of the general federal-question jurisdiction they have possessed since 1875. ... We hold, therefore, that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA.

Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 in response to consumer complaints over abuses of telephone technology, including computerized calls to private homes. The act prohibits certain conduct and authorizes states to bring civil actions to enjoin prohibited practices and recover damages on citizens' behalf. The act also allows citizens to bring private causes of action. Petitioner Marcus Mims brought an action against Arrow Financial Services, a debt collection agency, seeking damages for numerous violations of the act. The district court dismissed his claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Trustee has entirely failed to demonstrate the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant this Court in granting his motion. Indeed, with the trial of this case firmly set to begin just two months from now, the main effect of granting the Trustee's motion would be to materially delay, rather than materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

In July the court approved [JURIST report] the first payouts to Madoff's victims. Picard filed almost 60 lawsuits [JURIST report] for victims of Madoff's fraud in December 2010, including suits against JPMorgan Chase and HSBC. Judge Louis Stanton made Picard the trustee [order, PDF] of Bernard L. Madoff Securities, LLC in December 2008. Madoff was sentenced [JURIST report] in June 2009 to 150 years in prison for securities fraud stemming from his Ponzi scheme. He pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to 11 counts of securities fraud in March 2009.

In Filarsky v. Delia [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on whether a lawyer retained to work with government employees in conducting an internal affairs investigation is precluded from asserting qualified immunity [Cornell LII backgrounder] solely because of his status as a "private" lawyer rather than a government employee. Firefighter Nicholas Delia brought suit against the city of Rialto, the Rialto Fire Department, several city officials and a private attorney, Steve Filarsky, for violating his constitutional rights during an internal affairs investigation. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Delia's rights were violated but that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. The Ninth Circuit also found that the private attorney was not entitled to qualified immunity. Counsel for Filarsky argued:

When a private attorney is temporarily retained by the government to work in coordination with or under the direct supervision of government employees in fulfilling the government's business, in getting the government's work done, that attorney is entitled to the same immunity that a government employee performing that same function for that same government would receive. In this case that is qualified immunity. That rule comports with the history and policy concerns that have animated this Court's section 1983 and immunity jurisprudence.

The decisions we have taken today are a reflection of our determination to make sure that EU law, both in letter and in spirit, are fully respected and a stable legal environment exists in all of our Member States. Hungary is a key member of the European family. We do not want the shadow of doubt on respect for democratic principles and values to remain over the country any longer. The quicker that this is resolved the better.

Hungary has received much recent attention regarding its introduction of controversial laws. Earlier in the month, tens of thousands of protesters gathered outside of the Hungarian State Opera to protest the new constitution [JURIST report], which took effect January 1. Protesters criticized the constitution as giving the government too much power over the media, economy, and religion, which they believe to be clear violations of international human rights law. The Hungarian government, however, defended itself by asserting that the constitution, passed in April, was long overdue and embodies both national and European values. In December, Hungary's Constitutional Court [official website, in Hungarian] struck down [JURIST report] certain provisions of a recently passed media law as an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of the press in addition to a law regulating religious organizations [JURIST report]. Hungarian President Pat Schmitt signed the new constitution into law [JURIST report] amid societal concerns that the document contravenes European human rights principles. These concerns were echoed by Human Rights Watch [advocacy website], who said [press release] that Hungary's new constitution "enshrines discrimination."

The referral reflects our acknowledgement of the important advancements Rwanda has made in terms of law reform and capacity building within the justice system. With the assistance of donors, as well as the ICTR, these measures ensure that the legal system is consistent with international standards. With this renewed confidence in the capacity and robustness of Rwandan justice, we will encourage more cases to bereferred by the ICTR to Rwanda for trial.

The case involves the prosecution of the former Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [Hague Justice profile; case materials]. Six months after he was transferred to Rwanda [JURIST report] to be tried before its national court system under Rule 11 bis authorizing the transfer of cases to appropriate national jurisdictions, the ICTR last month rejected Uwinkindi's appeal [JURIST report] upholding the decision of transfer. Uwinkindi was indicted [indictment, PDF] in 2001 and has been accused of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. He was arrested in July 2010 by Ugandan authorities and pleaded not guilty [JURIST reports].

In March, Garzon filed a petition [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging the 2010 charges of abuse of power. In that case, Garzon is charged with politically motivated corruption in his investigation of crimes committed under the Franco dictatorship, in violation of the 1977 Amnesty Law, which affords amnesty for Franco-era crimes. The charges are based on Garzon's 2008 order [JURIST report] for certain government agencies, the Episcopal Conference, the University of Granada and the mayors of four cities to produce the names of people buried in mass graves, as well as the circumstances and dates of their burial. His petition follows the September 2010 decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court, which unanimously confirmed [JURIST report] a lower court order that Garzon abused his power and must face trial. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Last January the US Department of Defense [official website] transferred Guantanamo inmate Farhi Saeed Bin Mohammed to Algeria [JURIST report] following a court order from the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website]. In April 2010 lawyers for another Algerian Guantanamo inmate, Ahmed Belbacha, filed an emergency motion [JURIST report] in the same district court for a stay of his transfer to Algeria. In February 2010 an Algerian court acquitted a former Guantanamo detainee [JURIST report] of the charges of counterfeiting and affiliation with an extremist group. In January 2010 the US transferred two Algerian nationals back to their home country [JURIST report] after they had each spent more than five years at Guantanamo.

The US facility at Guantanamo Bay remains a controversial aspect of the US "war on terror," and numerous allegations of torture have been made by former prisoners, prompting multiple investigations. In April a Spanish judge announced that the Spanish National Court would not investigate [JURIST report] six Bush administration officials pursuant to torture claims from Guantanamo Bay after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] provided a letter assuring Spain that the US is investigating the treatment of detainees and has already completed federal criminal prosecution for the detainee mistreatment. In February 2011, the Spanish National Court agreed to continue investigating [JURIST report] allegations of a Moroccan man who claims that he was tortured while detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court first opened the investigation in April 2009 [JURIST report], looking into torture allegations at Guantanamo Bay made by four former prisoners. The court based its decision on statements by the prisoners who claimed they were subject to various forms of physical and mental abuse during their imprisonment, as well as CIA interrogation memos [JURIST report] detailing a plan which allegedly authorized the systematic torture and mistreatment of persons who were deprived the basic rights of detainees.

The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed [official website] defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoom [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption. The new constitution was drafted in response to international criticism [AI report, PDF] of 2003 government actions against protesters of prison conditions in the country.

[Qatada] argued that his high profile would mean he would be of real interest to the Jordanian authorities. If returned, he would also face retrial for the offences for which he had been convicted in absentia. He would thus face lengthy pre-trial detention ... and, if convicted, would face a long term of imprisonment. All these factors meant he was at real risk of torture, either pre-trial or after conviction, to obtain a confession from him or to obtain information for other reasons. ... [H]e alleged that his retrial would be flagrantly unfair: the State Security Court, a military court, lacked independence from the executive and there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture—either of him, his co-defendants or other prisoners—would be admitted against him.

Qatada was granted political asylum by the UK in 1994. When he was arrested in 2001 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, police seized a sizable sum of money in various currencies for which no explanation was given. Later in 2001, he went into hiding to avoid being arrested and detained under the then-proposed Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. He was arrested again in 2002 and held until March 2005 when he was released pursuant to a House of Lords judgment declaring his detention without trial to be unlawful. In February 2009 the ECHR ordered the UK to pay £2,500 in damages [JURIST report] to Qatada after determining that his imprisonment violated the European Convention on Human Rights [official website]. Despite his previous grant of asylum and fears of torture and persecution, UK Law Lords in February 2009 ruled that Qatada could be returned [JURIST report] to Jordan to face terrorism charges. The February decision overruled an April 2008 Court of Appeal decision blocking his deportation [JURIST report].

The court agreed Friday to rule in Kloeckner v. Solis [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine appellate jurisdiction in wrongful termination and discrimination cases for federal employees. The court will determine whether a party may appeal a case involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a district court, when the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) [official website], which hears cases involving federal employees, decides the case without determining the merits of a discrimination claim. The confusion arises from provisions in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 [text] that place cases involving discrimination in district courts. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] last year that because the MSPB did not address the merits of the employee's discrimination claim, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the appeal.

The court also agreed to rule in Cavazos v. Williams [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether a petitioner's habeas corpus [LII backgrounder] claim has been properly decided on its merits when a state court denies the claim without acknowledging a federal law basis for the claim in its opinion. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last year that Tara Williams' imprisonment was unconstitutional [opinion, PDF] because the court did not adjudicate the case on its merits when it failed to consider Williams' Sixth Amendment [text] claim. Williams was sentenced to life in prison without parole on murder charges after the trial court dismissed a known holdout juror.

On Tuesday, the court granted [order list, PDF] the addition of two parties in three separate cases concerning healthcare reform law: Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services [dockets]. The new parties are small business owners who oppose the federal individual insurance mandate and their addition will avoid a possible standing dispute [motion, PDF] since the original small business owner in the case recently filed for bankruptcy. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the cases in November to determine the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [text; JURIST backgrounder]. All three cases arose out of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled in August that the individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional but severable [JURIST report], upholding the rest of the law.

Over the past year, Egyptians have experienced many of the same human rights abuses that characterized Mubarak's police state. Under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), excessive use of force, torture, attacks on peaceful protests, and arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters, bloggers, and journalists have become commonplace and illustrate how little has changed. Ending these abuses will only occur when there is political will to break with the past and truly reform the country's oppressive machinery.

In November HRW urged [JURIST report] the Egyptian government to release Alaa Abd El Fattah [blog; Twitter feed], a blogger and activist who engaged in protests and accused the SCAF of committing abuses. Also in November the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] expressed [JURIST report] in its briefing notes [text] concerns over Egypt's limitations on freedom of expression and association. In October HRW reported [JURIST report] that proposed Egyptian political corruption law amendments had the potential for abuse.

Former president Arroyo has been a target of anti-corruption efforts by President Benigno Aquino [BBC profile]. Arroyo was recently arrested [JURIST report] in the hospital before she was able to leave the country to seek medical treatment. Corona presided over the court that voted to allow Arroyo to travel [JURIST report] to receive medical care, temporarily restraining the restrictions on Arroyo's travel in connection with several pending charges against her. Arroyo was president of the Philippines from 2001-2010. She left office after the Philippine Department of Justice (PDOJ) [official website] brought allegations of corruption against her. Arroyo was elected to the House of Representatives last year after the Philippine Supreme Court ruled her eligible to run [JURIST report], despite protests that she had an unfair advantage. In July 2010, Aquino signed an executive order [JURIST report] to set up a "truth commission" to investigate allegations that the outgoing administration engaged in corruption and rights violations.

Longstanding systematic problems of the American society are aggravating, such as racial discrimination, xenophobia, overcrowded prisons, unreasoned use of death penalties, in particular with respect to innocent, minor and mentally disabled persons, as well as flawed electoral system and corruption. There has been a sharp worsening of situation concerning the fulfillment of basic social and economic rights of citizens, including collective bargaining rights. Permanent deficits of federal and local budgets revealed gaps in the judicial system, including inadequate access to justice.

This report marks the first time that the MFA has issued a statement regarding the state of affairs of human rights in other countries, although Russia has been criticized internationally and by its own citizens for its human rights record. In December, the Russian Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights called for the annulment [JURIST report] of the conviction of ex-oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive]. Also in December, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [official website, in Russian] ordered an investigation into allegations of fraud [JURIST report] in recent parliamentary elections. Earlier, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) [official website] issued preliminary findings [JURIST report] that the Russian election was "characterized by frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulation." The US State Department [official website] and other world leaders have also called for an investigation into the allegations of election fraud and expressed concern over "harassment" of election monitoring groups.

These proceedings reflect an ongoing struggle between the government and the courts in Pakistan. Last month, the Supreme Court formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo [JURIST report] sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Zardari and former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. In October, the Supreme Court issued a judgment urging political parties to stop financing criminal groups [JURIST report] responsible for increased violence in the city of Karachi. The decision stated that militant groups have gained strength because of support from local political groups and ordered the Pakistani government to help address the corruption. The court struck down the NRO in 2009, which was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile] in 2007.

We cannot fail at this point to emphasize that democracy is not just literature, or constitutional and legislative provisions. Democracy is a culture and practice, commitment to the rule of law, respect for the international principles of human rights, coupled with serious national political action that represents all spectrums of society without exclusion or quotas. In parallel with this crucial step that we take today, we call for other important steps to be made to reinforce the democratic culture and practice on the land of our beloved country. Furthermore, we call upon all segments of society—the community and the family—to work together to ensure that our young people respect the law. This is a responsibility that must be shouldered by all, especially when respect for the law is linked to the principles of coexistence, tolerance, harmony and love.

Protests and demonstrations in Bahrain [BBC backgrounder] have been ongoing since February 2011 [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, a Bahraini court on overturned the death sentences for two protesters convicted of killing two police officers during the demonstrations that took place in the country last year. The original conviction [JURIST report] was rendered by a special security court set up as part of the emergency law in place while the country's Sunni rulers attempted to silence a Shiite-led to effort bolster civil and political rights in the country. In December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that the Bahrain government should release prisoners detained during peaceful protests [JURIST report] and focus on rebuilding national trust in the government. Pillay's statement followed a visit by a team of human rights officials to Bahrain at the invitation of the Bahrain government. In November, Al Khalifa ordered a special commission [JURIST report] to look into government recommendations made in a report by an independent Bahraini government commission. The report stated that Bahrain authorities used excessive force [JURIST report] and tortured detainees involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations earlier this year. Also in November, the Bahrain government admitted the use of excessive force [JURIST report] in anticipation of the independent report.

Earlier this month, as part of an agreement with the Arab League [official website, in Arabic], Syria released [JURIST report] more than 500 prisoners. Last month, Ban condemned [JURIST report] leaders of the Syrian government and violent protesters for the continuous bloodshed within the country. Also last month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] issued a report [JURIST report] alleging that Syrian army commanders and officials have ordered troops to attack unarmed protesters as part of an effort to stop public demonstrations. The violence in Syria has also been condemned by the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee and the Arab League [JURIST reports]. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] reports that more than 5,000 people have died since anti-government protests began last March.

The President's action was a surprise and terrible disappointment to small-business owners throughout the country who have suffered under the unabashedly pro-union rule-makings handed down by the NLRB. These alleged recess appointments are a brazen circumvention of the Congressional appointment process and raise serious legal concerns that cannot be ignored. The outrage amongst members of the small-business community is severe, and NFIB takes this action today to ensure that its members are protected from unconstitutional acts that exacerbate the NLRB's devolution from a neutral arbiter between labor and employers to a pro-union government agency.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] defended the use of recess appointments [CRS backgrounder, PDF] by Obama immediately after his announcement. The Recess Appointment Clause [Constitution, Article II, § 2 text] gives the president the "power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate." The DOJ's memo argues that although the Senate met between January 3 and 23, the sessions were not sufficient to constitute an interruption of a recess under the Recess Appointment Clause because they were only pro forma sessions that lasted less than a minute and there was no intent to conduct any business. Some experts argue that recess appointments have regularly been used by presidents [JURIST op-ed] since George Washington. It is only a relatively recent practice that obstructionists have begun holding perfunctory pro forma sessions every three days while the Senate is on recess in order to block recess appointments.

Although same-sex marriage is recognized across Canada, various provinces have interpreted rights in different ways. In October, a judge for the Queen's Court Bench of Alberta [official website] granted custody [JURIST report] of a child to a non-biological father who was an ex-partner of the biological father. In January, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that refusal by provincial marriage commissioners to marry same-sex couples is unconstitutional and thereby invalidated a proposed amendment to Saskatchewan's Marriage Act of 1995 that would have allowed the commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs. Canada legalized same-sex [JURIST report] marriage in 2005 with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act.

In November, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile] urged Hezbollah not to resort to violence [text, JURIST report] in an attempt to impede the investigation of the STL. In an interview published by the Lebanese Newspaper An-Nahar [official website], Clinton reiterated US support for Lebanon and noted that the work of the STL is "legitimate and necessary." She also stressed the independence of the tribunal and that "no one knows what the Special Tribunal is going to do, who it might indict, or when it might choose to move forward." Clinton's interview followed remarks made by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah [BBC profile], who said he would "cut off the hands" of any person attempting to arrest a Hezbollah member in connection with the murder. Nasrallah has previously called for all Lebanese to boycott the STL [JURIST report] after information surfaced suggesting that the tribunal is set to implicate members of Hezbollah as participants in the assassination of Hariri.

The Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled in Brown v. Plata [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] to uphold an order [JURIST report] requiring California to release up to 46,000 prisoners to remedy the state's overcrowded prisons [JURIST news archive]. Counsel for the state of California argued that the "extraordinary and unprecedented order ... requiring the release of between 36,000 and 45,000 inmates ... is extraordinarily premature." Counsel for the prisoners argued that the court must allow the lower court to provide a remedy for 20 years of overcrowding that has violated inmates' constitutional rights. The California prison system was operating at nearly 200 percent capacity. The three-judge panel, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, ordered California to reduce the population by 46,000 inmates to be under 137.5 percent institutional capacity within two years. California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] submitted a plan [JURIST report] to comply with the court order and relieve prison overcrowding in June. As of January, California has reduced its prison population by 11,000 prisoners [report to court, PDF] and is now operating at 167 percent capacity.

We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers. Current law protects the rights of American innovators by prohibiting the illegal sale and distribution of their products by domestic websites. But there is no equivalent protection for American companies from foreign online criminals who steal and sell American goods to consumers around the world. Congress must address the widespread problem of online theft of America's technology and products from foreign thieves.

Recently, there has been a surge in government attention to copyright issues. Earlier this month, the Spanish government approved a new law [JURIST report] that creates a government agency with the authority to force Internet service providers to block certain websites that are involved in pirating copyrighted material. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in November that ISPs cannot be required by law to monitor [JURIST report] their customers' activities as an attempt to combat illegal sharing of copyrighted material. In October, the US Supreme Court considered the issue of foreign copyrights in the case of Golan v. Holder when it considered arguments to determine the copyright status of foreign works [JURIST report] that used to be in the public domain. A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a music file-sharing site could be held liable for contributory copyright infringement [JURIST report] in August.

Moldova's main political parties, the pro-EU party and the Communist Party, have been deadlocked since Moldova's last president, Vladimir Voronin, resigned [RFE/RL report] in September 2009. Lupu has unsuccessfully run for president three times [RFE/FL report]. Voronin, leader of the opposition Communist Party, stated that he refuses to support Lupu but indicated that Moldova could end the deadlock by voting for a non-parliamentary, non-partisan candidate. In April 2009 the Moldovan Constitutional Court confirmed controversial election results [JURIST report] which gave the Communist Party 60 of the 101 parliament seats, after it had ordered a recount [JURIST report] after accusations of falsified voter registration rolls.

Myanmar released 200 prisoners in October after the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission was formed [JURIST reports] in September. Although happy with this start, Ban encouraged Myanmar at the time to release the rest of its political prisoners. Myanmar has been working toward mending relations with the international community since last March, when a newly elected civilian regime took over [BBC report] after 20 years of military rule. Myanmar has still not released all of the 2,202 political prisoners [JURIST report] the UN called for it to release in 2010.

Obama has been criticized [Heritage Foundation report] by the right for the recess appointments as an unconstitutional extension of presidential power. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) [official website] stated that Obama's use of recess appointments "ignore[s] more than 90 years of legal precedent" [press release]. Some experts argue that recess appointments have regularly been used by presidents [JURIST op-ed] since George Washington. It is only a relatively recent practice that obstructionists have begun holding perfunctory pro forma sessions every three days while the Senate is on recess in order to block recess appointments. In 2005 then-president George W. Bush [JURIST news archive] used recess appointments to name Alice Fisher to the top post in the DOJ's criminal division, Peter Flory as an Assistant Secretary of Defense and John Bolton [JURIST reports] as US Ambassador to the UN. The US Supreme Court [official website] declined to hear [JURIST report] a case challenging President Bush's use of recess appointments.

This trial has been going on for more than three years [JURIST report] and involves many of the Polish leaders in 1981, including Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski and seven other Communist-era officials. Poland's Constitutional Tribunal [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in March that the 1981 declaration of martial law violated the country's then-governing constitution [text]. The trial hit several snags between 2008 and 2011, with both the death of the presiding judge and Jaruzelski's own failing health having delayed the proceedings for several years.

Although same-sex marriage is recognized across Canada, various provinces have interpreted rights in different ways. In October, a judge for the Queen's Court Bench of Alberta [official website] granted custody [JURIST report] of a child to a non-biological father who was a ex-partner of the biological father. In January, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that refusal by provincial marriage commissioners to marry same-sex couples is unconstitutional and thereby invalidated a proposed amendment to Saskatchewan's Marriage act of 1995 that would have allowed the commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs.

Israeli government has been active in passing stricter laws this year. The Israeli Knesset [official website] passed [JURIST report] on Tuesday a bill that increases the penalties on illegal migrants in Israel and Israelis helping them. Penalties may include arrest and detainment in prison for indefinite time period without trial. The government also approved a bill [JURIST report] that bans the use of Nazi symbolism.

One day it is a church congregation that is being targeted, the next day it is a mosque, and the day after that it is some secular target. The religious tolerance that has been a central tenet of Nigeria's Federation is being threatened, and I urge all Nigeria's leaders to avoid falling into the trap of calling for, or sanctioning, retaliation or making other provocative statements. Everybody will be the loser if Boko Haram succeeds in its aim and efforts to sow discord between Muslim and Christian, or pit Northerner against Southerner. The fact that people are already leaving some areas where they are in a minority, out of fear of attacks by the majority, shows just how dangerous this is becoming for the country as a whole.

Boko Haram has been fighting to overthrow the Nigerian government and create an Islamic state, and has warned Christians in the mostly Muslim northern regions to leave the area. The group has been blamed by Nigerian authorities for hundreds of deaths in bombings and shooting over the last 18 months, and has publicly claimed responsibility for several of the attacks, including church bombings [AP report] on December 25 that killed approximately 40 people. Although Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan [BBC profile] quickly promised to bring the militants to justice, he has since declared a state of emergency [WP report] in several locations. The Christmas day bombings were internationally condemned, including being labeled as "senseless violence" by the White House [AP report] and "acts of "blind hatred" by the Vatican [AP report]. Additionally, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] has previously expressed concern [JURIST report] over acts of ethnic violence by Boko Haram. Specifically, the Office called the group's August bombing of a UN building in Nigeria [VO report] "cowardly." At least 18 people were killed in the attack.

[These cases] involve specific allegations about specific conduct. The question that has therefore been addressed in these cases is whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a criminal conviction against an identified individual in relation to these specific matters. The investigations have not examined wider allegations of ill-treatment, which, it is anticipated, will be examined by the Detainee Inquiry, chaired by Sir Peter Gibson. Nor have the investigations covered other specific allegations of ill-treatment beyond those raised in [these cases]. Should further evidence in relation to the matters raised...become available as a result of the Detainee Inquiry, the MPS would consider re-opening these operations.

Last August, 10 human rights groups said they would boycott the UK government inquiry [JURIST report] into allegations of torture complicity after receiving information on the protocol and transparency of the inquiry. They argued the inquiry would not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. In March former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] said in a BBC documentary that the UK gave "tacit approval" for torture [JURIST report] of terror suspects. In July 2010 UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] said that he will create a panel to investigate claims [JURIST report] that British government agents were complicit in the torture of terrorism suspects held overseas, after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the UK government to investigate torture allegations and reaffirm its support for human rights.

Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo have previously raised concerns with practices used at the prison. Last November, lawyers complained specifically about the infringement on attorney-client privilege [JURIST report] in a letter directed to the attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs. The attorneys alleged that those working with the Joint Task Force Guantanamo [JTF-GTMO) seize, open, interpret, read and review attorney-client privileged communications, actions which the attorneys argued are unlawful. The five detainees have been held at Guantanamo since 2006 when they were transferred there from the custody of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Last April, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the trials [JURIST report] for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other detainees are set to be held before a military commission. This was a change from Holder's previous position to conduct the trials in federal civilian court [JURIST report]. Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of operation at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report].

In early December an American was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison [JURIST report] after he translated part of a banned biography and put the translation on the Internet. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue [official website] condemned the law [JURIST report] in October 2011 saying that it was too vague on what constituted an insult. In 2009, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for a public trial [JURIST report] for a Thai political activist accused of violating the law, when the judge ordered the trial closed for national security reasons. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul [advocacy website] was convicted [BBC report] at the trial and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

In Roberts v. Sea-Land Services [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] 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 for a period between 2002 and 2005, but her claim was not adjudicated until 2007. Roberts argues that the national average wage when her claim was first adjudicated and decided in 2007 should be used, as opposed to the national average wage from 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. The oral arguments focus on the ambiguity of the word "award," which counsel for the petitioner maintains is the compensation resulting from an administrative compensation order. The state argued that it would not make sense to compensate an employee who has not received an administrative order differently that one who has.

Senegal has been under pressure to send Habre to a country where he will face trial for his alleged war crimes committed during his rule of Chad. In July of last year, Senegal reversed [JURIST report] its decision to send the former dictator back to Chad after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] warned he could be tortured. The decision came after Pillay issued a plea [JURIST report] not to return Habre to Chad, which has already sentenced him to death in absentia and where she fears he will be tortured. The plea from Pillay came just days after Senegal announced it was deporting Habre to Chad [JURIST report] to face charges for war crimes. Belgium has long sought Habre's extradition under a universal jurisdiction law that allows Belgian courts to hear cases over violations of international law. In 2009, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] denied [JURIST report] Belgium's request to compel Habre's extradition.

[T]he drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas exploration and production has been found to use a variety of contaminating chemicals and materials that can suddenly and in an uncontrolled manner be introduced into the surface waters and ground water of the State; that the companies engaging in the use of this drilling technique have been less than forthcoming in revealing the "cocktail" of chemicals and their volume that can be introduced into these waters ... The Legislature therefore determines it is prudent and in the best interest of the people of the State of New Jersey to prohibit hydraulic fracturing in the State for the purpose of natural gas exploration or production.

Fracking has been a contentious issue recently, both in the US and abroad. Fracking is a process in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped into the ground to create fractures in rocks which allows trapped gas and oil to come to surface. Proponents trumpet the technique for providing people with abundant energy as well as for creating jobs in a tough economy. Opponents of fracking point out its negative consequences on the environment and public health. In October the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] announced plans to develop standards [JURIST report] for wastewater discharge from fracking. In July JURIST contributor Joseph Schaeffer wrote extensively [JURIST op-ed] about communities in Appalachia preemptively passing laws to curb fracking. In June New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official profile] sued the US government [JURIST report] for its alleged failure to study the risks of fracking. In May France's lower house approved a nationwide ban on fracking [JURIST report].

In November the ICTB began its first trial [JURIST report] for crimes against humanity committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War. The defendant is Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a former member of Parliament in the National Assembly of Bangladesh [official website, in Bengali] and one of the former leaders of JI. Earlier that month ICTB prosecutors filed an application [JURIST report] for formal charges against Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a former leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party [party website] who is also accused of crimes against humanity during the Liberation War. In May Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] sent a letter to the Bangladesh government praising its efforts through the ICTB to prosecute war crimes, but urging the government to ensure that the trials are carried out in accordance with international human rights expectations [JURIST report]. Bangladesh established the ICTB [JURIST report] in March 2010.

The scope of the federal government's power is much debated, but the fact that its powers are limited and enumerated is common ground to all. A judicial doctrine that implicitly or explicitly allows Congress to use the spending power without meaningful judicial supervision is simply not compatible with that basic premise of our system.

On Saturday, the federal government filed a brief [JURIST report] before the US Supreme Court arguing that the minimum coverage provision of the PPACA, which requires almost every US citizen to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty, is constitutional. The government is attempting to keep the focus of the argument on health care reform as a whole [SCOTUSblog report], rather than on the specific minimum coverage provision. The same group of 26 states filed a supporting brief arguing that the minimum coverage provision cannot be severed from the health care reform act without the entire system collapsing. The court granted certiorari to rule on health care reform law [JURIST report] in three separate cases, reserving five-and-half-hours for oral argument on the issue.

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to emphasize the deference courts must give to a "religious organization's good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister." The other justices implemented a fact-intensive analysis to determine whether the employee was a "minister" and therefore subject to the ministerial exception.

Currently 171 detainees [NYT docket] are held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration originally wanted suspected terrorists to be tried before a federal civilian court, but changed its position after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST reports] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US, despite repeated appeals from rights groups to utilize civilian courts over military commissions. Last March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] called on the Obama administration to hold civilian trials [JURIST report] for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspected terrorists saying that the military commissions system is fatally flawed and cannot be reformed. Earlier that month, the ACLU released a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging President Barack Obama [JURIST report] to uphold his pledge to try 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. That release came just days after White House advisers announced they were considering recommending [JURIST report] that Mohammed be tried in a military court rather than through the civilian criminal justice system. In an interview in 2010, Holder stated that the main goal of the administration is to hold the people responsible [JURIST report] for 9/11 accountable in the most effective way possible. Holder reiterated his support for holding the trials in civilian courts [JURIST report], saying that the criminal justice system has been proven an effective location for terrorism trials and that excluding civilian courts as a possible tool in fighting terrorism would ultimately weaken the nation's security. Holder announced in November 2009 that Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court [JURIST report] in Manhattan, drawing intense criticism and leading the Obama administration to reconsider the decision.

Similar immigration laws are being challenged throughout the US. In December a federal judge blocked [JURIST report] portions of the South Carolina law. Judge Richard Gergel blocked the provision that requires police to check immigration status, finding, "[t]his state-mandated scrutiny is without consideration of federal enforcement priorities and unquestionably vastly expands the persons targeted for immigration enforcement action. He also blocked the provision that outlaws harboring or transporting an illegal immigrant, finding a likelihood of irreparable harm. The law was set to take effect January 1. Also in December, Alabama and Georgia filed motions in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] seeking to stay proceedings [JURIST report] on challenges to their immigration laws pending the Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States. A challenge is also pending to an immigration law in Utah, and an Indiana law has been blocked [JURIST reports] by a federal judge.

Although the Ninth Circuit’s test may not be the easiest to administer, it best reflects the text of §1333(b), which establishes neither a situs-of-injury nor a "but for" test. We are confident that ALJs and courts will be able to determine whether an injured employee has established a significant causal link between the injury he suffered and his employer's on-OCS extractive operations. Although we expect that employees injured while performing tasks on the OCS will regularly satisfy the test, whether an employee injured while performing an off-OCS task qualifies—like Valladolid, who died while tasked with onshore scrap metal consolidation—is a question that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.

Wednesday's ruling settles a split among the circuit courts. The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in October. Pacific Operators Offshore argued that the OCSLA has no remedy for an injury that occurred on dry land, but rather Valladolid should have sought relief through state workers compensation law. The federal government argued that the OCSLA covers injuries or death on dry land explicitly, but not under the "nexus" reasoning the Ninth Circuit utilized. Valladolid's attorney argued that, pursuant to similar treatment in the Jones Act [text], his client's estate should be compensated for his death that occurred on land.

Rwanda has been continually scrutinized in relation to the 1994 genocide. In a report released in June of last year, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged Rwanda to review laws it claims have a "genocide ideology" [JURIST report] that are being used to silence critics and dissenters. AI claims that Rwanda has broadly drafted hate speech laws passed since the 1994 genocide that are being used to criminalize legitimate criticism and expression that does not rise to the level of hate speech. In April 2010, Rwandan authorities arrested [JURIST report] opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza [campaign website], accusing her of denying the 1994 genocide. The arrests come at a time when Kagame has received criticism from Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] for his treatment of opposition parties. Last August, Peter Erlinder, former defense counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, argued [JURIST op-ed] that even though the White House has become more openly critical of Rwandan President Paul Kagame's regime, the US and international community at large must take a much closer look at those in power before true reconciliation will come to Rwanda.

Given the safeguards generally applicable in criminal trials, protections availed of by the defense in Perry's case, we hold that the introduction of Blandon's eyewitness testimony, without a preliminary judicial assessment of its reliability, did not render Perry’s trial fundamentally unfair.

Our cases thus establish a clear rule: The admission at trial of out-of-court eyewitness identifications derived from impermissibly suggestive circumstances that pose a very substantial likelihood of misidentification violates due process. The Court today announces that that rule does not even "com[e] into play" unless the suggestive circumstances are improperly "police-arranged."

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November. The petitioner argued that it was fundamentally unfair to allow potentially erroneous eyewitness identifications into the trial simply because they were not orchestrated by police. New Hampshire, supported by the US Solicitor General as amicus curiae, argued that the rules of evidence provided sufficient safeguards and that cases where the erroneous identifications were disallowed were aimed at deterring police misconduct, which no one has alleged in the case at hand. In addition, the government urged it is the primary role of the jury to assess the reliability of evidence and handing that determination to the judge would be a fundamental shift in our trial practice. The court questioned whether the role of these due process protections was strictly deterrence or whether it also included prevention of injustice, as urged by petitioner.

The Court's decision in Casey accented the state's interest in potential life, holding that its earlier decisions following Roe failed to give this interest force at all stages of a pregnancy and that in service of this interest the state may insist that a woman be made aware of the development of the fetus at her stage of pregnancy. Significantly, the Court held that the fact that such truthful, accurate information may cause a woman to choose not to abort her pregnancy only reinforces its relevance to an informed decision. Insisting that a doctor give this information in his traditional role of securing informed consent is permissible. Texas has done just this and affords three exceptions to its required delivery of information about the stage of fetal growth where in its judgment the information had less relevance, a legislative judgment that is at least rational.

Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] signed the measure into law in May, but it was blocked in August by a federal judge after a challenge [JURIST reports] from the CRR. Both Oklahoma and North Carolina have enacted similar laws. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against the North Carolina in October. With the sonogram portion temporarily removed, the rest of the North Carolina law went into force. Oklahoma's law has also been blocked [JURIST report].

And as we sit here today, literally facing thousands and thousands of ginned-up computer-generated complaints that are holding up literally hundreds of TV license renewals, so that the whole system has come to a screeching halt because of the difficulty of trying to resolve these issues. So to say that the system is working well seems to me, at least from the broadcasters' perspective, is to suggest that's just not true.

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU) [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments [text] allow a state to compel non-union members to pay into union funds that are being used for political advocacy that they disagree with, thus making support of that political stance a condition for employment. There is also a question as to whether notice that this is a condition of employment makes the condition sufficient. However, between the time certiorari was granted and oral arguments, SEIU had decided that they were not going to defend the case further and would argue mootness, due to the original officers of the union no longer holding those positions and that the union has created a new procedure to address the issue at hand. The plaintiffs argued that the court should still rule on the financial award at stake.

We have observed that evidence impeaching an eyewitness may not be material if the State's testimony was the only evidence linking Smith to the crime. And Boatner's undisclosed statements directly contradict his testimony: Boatner told the jury that he had "[n]o doubt" that Smith was the gunman he stood "face to face" with on the night of the crime, but [the police detective's] notes show Boatner saying that he "could not ID anyone because [he] couldn't see faces" and "would not know them if [he] saw them." Boatner's undisclosed statements were plainly material.

Smith v. Cain is only the latest of several allegations of prosecutorial misconduct [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] out of the New Orleans District Attorney's office. This scrutiny has been ongoing for 15 years, beginning with Kyles v. Whitley [text], as the New Orleans District Attorney's office continues a policy of withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense. Last term, a divided court ruled in Connick v. Thompson [JURIST report] that District Attorney Harry Connick Sr.'s failure to train subordinates in properly handling evidence could not result in a civil suit. As in Smith v. Cain, Thompson was convicted due to Connick's office not releasing exculpatory evidence to the defense.

The flaw in [respondents'] argument is its premise: that the disclosure provision provides consumers with a right to bring an action in a court of law. It does not. Rather, it imposes an obligation on credit repair organizations to supply consumers with a specific statement set forth (in quotation marks) in the statute. The only consumer right it creates is the right to receive the statement, which is meant to describe the consumer protections that the law elsewhere provides.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in October. The attorney for CompuCredit argued that strong federal policy in favor of arbitration overrides any differing laws that discourage waivers of rights to sue. Respondents argued that the CROA explicitly bans any suggestion of waiving the right to sue and that credit card companies should be fined for even asking applicants to sign an arbitration waiver.

Al-Qahtani has been at the center of many controversies pertaining to the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. In April the US military released hundreds of classified documents to select news organizations [NYT report], including one which revealed that al-Qahtani was leashed like a dog, sexually humiliated and forced to urinate on himself. In January 2009 Susan Crawford, then-convening authority of military commissions, admitted [JURIST report] that torture tactics were used against al-Qahtani. Crawford refused to allow prosecution of al-Qahtani because he was tortured. In November 2008 US military prosecutors filed a new set of charges against al-Qahtani over his alleged role in the 9/11 attacks, after dropping charges in May 2008 [JURIST reports] following suspicions that al-Qahtani's statements were coerced by US torture [JURIST report]. US military personnel captured al-Qahtani in Afghanistan in December 2001 and transferred him to Guantanamo, where he has been held ever since.

The acceptance of the indictment came after the prosecution charged the two men [JURIST report] last week. Turkey has been facing numerous coup plots during the past years and continues to bring charges against military officials and individuals for such crimes against the government. In November, 13 Turkish journalists were accused of plotting [JURIST report] to overthrow the government. In August, the court also issued arrest warrants [JURIST report] for seven generals and admirals in relation with allegations that they created an anti-government website in 2009. After detainment for questioning three high ranking military officials in connection with their alleged coup plot, the Turkish court released [JURIST report] them but they remained under investigation.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November. During oral arguments the court appeared to be strongly convinced by the government-petitioner's argument that Bivens should continue to be used as a last resort and not expanded when state law provides adequate redress. Respondents argued that Bivens casts a wide net and allows any specific civil action that is not delineated by that state's law, whereas several justices argued with the attorney that almost any action could be addressed by state tort law. Respondent also suggested that as his client was a federal prisoner prosecuted by the federal government, with only access to federal law in the prison library, he should be allowed to address his claims in federal court.

Federal courts should be wary of interfering with the voting process, but we agree with the district court and the Sixth Circuit that "'it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.'" ... "While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights." ... We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the preliminary injunction was not adverse to the public interest.

Despite its approval by voters in November 2010, the Oklahoma state amendment was soon after blocked by a federal judge [JURIST reports]. Before Tuesday's ruling, the constitutionality of the amendment has been consistently controversial, as it has been both condemned as un-American [JURIST comment], and also supported as a preemptive strike [Daily Mail report] against the use of Islamic law in Oklahoma. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Muneer Awad [WT backgrounder], executive director of the Oklahoma CAIR.

For petitioners who pursue direct review all the way to this Court, the judgment becomes final at the "conclusion of direct review"—when this Court affirms a conviction on the merits or denies a petition for certiorari. For all other petitioners, the judgment becomes final at the "expiration of the time for seeking such review"—when the time for pursuing direct review in this Court, or in state court, expires.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November. During arguments, the petitioner argued that a COA that does not fully comply with all the requirements of the statute, nonetheless confers jurisdiction on the federal appeals court. Petitioner also argued that the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus review should not begin until the ruling is final according to State law, as opposed to a uniform federally-imposed definition of a final ruling. The state argued that, because the COA was incomplete due to the district court judge's error, it did not meet the requirements of the statute and, therefore, did not confer jurisdiction on the appeals court. The state also argued that the statute provides a two-prong to determine with the clock starts to run and that, even where that might start the clock running before state habeas corpus review becomes available, the clock should start nonetheless.

The Israeli government has been active in passing strict laws in the new year. An Israeli government panel Monday approved a bill that would make it illegal to use any Nazi symbols [JURIST report], names, or images, including the use of the term "Nazi" and any clothing resembling that worn by prisoners at concentration camps. The bill would impose a fine up to USD $26,000 and a possible jail sentence of six months, although Nazi symbols would be allowed for educational and historical purposes. Last week, Knesset passed a law that changed the rules [JURIST report] governing the selection of Supreme Court [official website] justices. The law has been criticized [AP report] for undermining the independence of the judiciary in an effort to further a conservative judge favored by the government. Many fear the new laws will influence judicial decisions, impede upon the rights of the press and be used to harass liberal groups.

Obedience to the command of a court, and that too of the Apex Court of the country, is not a game of chess or a game of hide and seek. It is, of course, a serious business and governance of the State and maintaining the constitutional balance and equilibrium cannot be allowed to be held hostage to political tomfoolery or shenanigans. ... We may unhesitatingly observe that in our country governed by a Constitution political loyalty cannot be accepted as stronger than loyalty to the State and dictates of a political master or party cannot be allowed to be put up as a defence to failure to obey the Constitution.

Pakistan has faced an ongoing struggle with corruption that the courts have attempted to battle. Last month, the Supreme Court formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo [JURIST report] sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Zardari and former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. Tuesday's warning stems from court orders issued when the Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) [text] in 2010, which granted immunity to Zardari and 8,000 other government officials from charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder and terrorism between January 1986 and October 1999. The NRO was signed [JURIST report] by former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile] in 2007.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged the Yemeni government Friday not to pass the proposed legislation [JURIST report] because it would be unjust to the victims of human rights violations. Pillay had requested an investigation [JURIST report] of Saleh and his administration in early December for alleged human rights violations in violence against protesters. The UN Security also urged the Yemeni government [JURIST report] to stop violence against protesters in September, weeks after it had issued a press release declaring a humanitarian crisis [text] in the country. Saleh agreed to step down [JURIST report] from his office in April amidst pressure from nationwide protests.

A US military judge denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] the charges against Wuterich in 2010, setting the trial in motion. His trial was postponed in 2008 [JURIST report] while prosecutors appealed a decision to get rid of a subpoena for an unaired portion of a CBS interview with him regarding the incident. Wuterich was originally charged with unpremeditated murder, but that charge was dropped after a recommendation from an investigating officer [JURIST report] in 2007. Charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani [JURIST news archive] were dropped in June 2008, a decision that was upheld [JURIST reports] the following March. Also in June 2008 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson [JURIST news archive] was cleared on all counts, including charges that he ordered a subordinate officer to delete photographic evidence [JURIST reports] of the killings. In August 2007 all charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone were dismissed [JURIST report]. An official report on the Haditha incident by US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell found "serious misconduct" [JURIST report] at all levels of the US Marine Corps chain of command.

Apart from Israel, Nazi symbolism has been controversial in other countries as well. In 2007, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled Nazi symbols could be used to protest extremism [JURIST report], overturning a prior decision by a state court in Stuttgart. The lower court had ordered Juergen Kamm, who began an Internet company called Nix Gut, to pay a fine of 3,600 euros (US $4,600) for selling T-shirts and badges featuring a swastika surrounded by a red circle and slash. Judge Walter Winkler ruled that for any symbol to be allowed, the anti-Nazi meaning had to be immediately apparent. In 2005, The EU ended consideration of proposals [JURIST report] that would have banned Nazi symbols in the 25-country bloc after it became apparent that member states could not agree on which symbols should be included in the ban.

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] can enforce a compliance order issued without any opportunity to contest the order. The Sacketts own land near Priest Lake, Idaho, on which they intended to build a house. After purchasing the property and obtaining local permits, they began to grade the land for construction of a house. They received an EPA Administrative Compliance Order that said the grading of the land was in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) [text, PDF] and imposed harsh civil penalties for non-compliance. The Sacketts disagree that their property is a wetland under the meaning of the CWA. The case raises the issue of whether the CWA precludes pre-enforcement judicial review, and if so, whether that violates the petitioner's Due Process [Cornell LII backgrounder] rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld [opinion, PDF] the dismissal of the suit. The justices appeared skeptical of the EPA's arguments Monday, with Justice Samuel Alito asking the EPA's lawyer, "if you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?"

In Kappos v. Hyatt [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on patent law. When the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) [official website] denies an application for a patent, the applicant may seek judicial review of the agency's final action through either of two avenues. The applicant may obtain direct review of the agency's determination in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 USC § 141 [text]. Alternatively, the applicant may commence a civil action against the Director of the PTO in federal district court under 35 USC § 145 [text] The court will decide whether a plaintiff in a § 145 action may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance. The court will also consider whether, when new evidence is introduced under § 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO. The Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that "§ 145 imposes no limitation on an applicant's right to introduce new evidence before the district court."

Freedom of expression, association and assembly were promised, but the harsh reality is that criticism of the new authorities is not tolerated, activists are being targeted, and NGOs are being threatened with intrusive criminal investigations. Peaceful demonstrators continue to be forcibly dispersed, leading to clashes with riot police and deaths. Greater political participation by all Egyptians was promised, yet women have again been marginalized. Many independent trade unions have been formed, but the authorities have banned strikes. A better future for all Egyptians was promised, but nearly one year on millions of people continue to live in slums and in poverty, and wait for their voices to be heard.

The violence and protests have have also caused concern at the UN. In December, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement chastising both the government of President Bashar al-Assad and violent protesters regarding the continuous bloodshed in Syria [JURIST report]. Also in December UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned the brutal crackdown [JURIST report] on protesters by military and security forces in Egypt. In November, AI issued a report which concluded that Egypt's ruling military council has committed numerous human rights violations [JURIST report], including abuse of protesters and journalists who voice their dissatisfaction with the government.

Two ex-Blackwater contractors were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison [JURIST reports] last year for their role in the shooting deaths of two Afghan nationals and the wounding of a third. In April a federal grand jury indicted five former Blackwater executives [JURIST report] on charges of weapons violations and lying to investigators. In 2010 the Iraqi government ordered 250 former Blackwater employees to leave Iraq in reaction to the dismissal of criminal charges [JURIST reports] against the guards involved in the 2007 shooting incident. The same month, the Department of Justice [official website] also opened an investigation [JURIST report] into whether Blackwater bribed the Iraqi government to be permitted to continue operating in Iraq following the 2007 shootings. Blackwater ceased operations in Baghdad [JURIST report] in May 2009 when its security contracts expired and were not renewed.

Also Friday, the court agreed to rule in Florida v. Jardines [docket, cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog at the front door of a house is a search under the Fourth Amendment [text] requiring probable cause. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled [opinion, PDF] in April that the "sniff test" was a search under the Fourth Amendment and required probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.

On Monday the court denied certiorari [order list, PDF] in Cash v. Maxwell [docket], upholding the Ninth Circuit decision [opinion, PDF] reversing the 1984 conviction of Bobby Joe Maxwell for the murders of 10 homeless men. The Ninth Circuit presented evidence showing that Maxwell's conviction had been based on testimony from an unreliable witness. However, Justices Scalia and Alito dissented to the denial of certiorari, arguing that the Ninth Circuit relied on circumstantial evidence and that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 (AEDPA) [text] prevented federal reconsideration of the case. Also Monday, the court affirmed a lower court ruling in Bluman v. FEC [docket; jurisdictional statement, PDF] that foreign nationals living in the US cannot contribute to US election campaigns, making clear that its controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC [JURIST report] does not extend beyond US citizens.

In December UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that the Bahrain government should release prisoners detained during peaceful protests [JURIST report] and focus on rebuilding national trust in the government. Pillay's statement followed a visit by a team of human rights officials to Bahrain at the invitation of the Bahrain government. In November Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official website] ordered a special commission [JURIST report] to look into government recommendations made in a report by an independent Bahraini government commission. The report stated that Bahrain authorities used excessive force [JURIST report] and tortured detainees involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations earlier this year. Also in November, the Bahrain government admitted the use of excessive force [JURIST report] in anticipation of the independent report.

The two-year sodomy trial concluded last month when the prosecution delivered its closing arguments, following the defense's closing arguments in October and Anwar's testimony in August denying the charges [JURIST reports]. A Malaysian court ruled [JURIST report] in May that prosecutors had enough evidence to continue to pursue the sodomy case against Anwar. The opposition leader was arrested in July 2008 after he filed a lawsuit against his accuser [JURIST reports] a month earlier. In December 2010, Anwar filed a complaint [JURIST report] in a Malaysian court over a WikiLeaks [website] cable published by Australian newspapers stating he had engaged in sodomy. Anwar was Malaysia's deputy prime minister under former Mahathir Mohamad until he was fired in 1998 following earlier sodomy charges of which he was initially convicted but later acquitted. He reentered Malaysian politics following the expiration of a 10-year ban [JURIST report] against him for unrelated corruption charges.

Preliminary hearings [JURIST report] for Hekmati began last month. Leading evidence against Hekmati included the confession made on Iranian state television [Naharnet report] where he admitted his mission was to infiltrate Iran's intelligence systems by initially offering information to gain their trust and in order to find evidence that Iran was involved in terrorist activity [CNN report]. Herkmati told the court that he was fooled by the CIA and did not want to hurt Iran, according to a Fars News report [FNA report]. The US contends that the allegations against Hekmati are false and that his confessions were forced [AFP report].

Last month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official website] condemned [JURIST report] leaders of the Syrian government and violent protesters for the continuous bloodshed within the country. Approximately 44 people were killed [Al Jazeera report] before Christmas in two suicide car bomb attacks in Damascus. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) [official website] has since linked the attacks to anti-government protests, while protesters and their supporters have suggested that the state planted attacks to coincide with an Arab League visit. Ban's press release pleaded that both groups resist violence. The UN Security Council [official website] echoed Ban's sentiments the same day, declaring [UN News Centre report] that the recent car bombings were acts of terrorism. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] reports that more than 5,000 people have died since anti-government protests began last March.

Saudi Arabia has been criticized for its capital punishment practices in the past. In July Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called for a halt to executions [JURIST report] in Saudi Arabia, claiming there is often a lack of basic procedural due process. AI cited the increase in capital punishment over 2011 as cause for concern. In 2008 AI released a report finding that Saudi Arabia executed more people per capita than any other nation [JURIST reports]. According to that report, at least 1,252 people were put to death in 24 countries, with Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Pakistan and the US accounting for the vast majority of the executions. In July of that year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report criticizing a lack of legal protections [JURIST report] for the 1.5 million migrant domestic workers in Saudi Arabia. Among other proposed reforms, HRW called on the Saudi government to amend the 2005 Labor Law to cover migrant workers.

In June the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] announced plans to send a panel to investigate the human rights situation in Yemen [JURIST report]. Rights groups have criticized Yemen for its handling of pro-democracy protests that have persisted since February. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] released a report [text; PDF] in April urging the international community to pressure Yemeni authorities to investigate protestor deaths. Just days earlier, the OHCHR urged the Yemeni government [JURIST report] to discontinue using force against peaceful protesters. The Yemeni Parliament enacted several emergency measures [JURIST report] in March at the request of President Ali Abdullah Saleh [official website, in Arabic] in an effort to end anti-government protests. Saleh, who agreed to step down in April [JURIST report], and his party, the General People's Congress (GPC), had caused mounting political tensions due to attempts to remove presidential term limits [JURIST report] and expand their political power. In December, the parliament stoked outrage among opposition parties and independents when it amended the constitution [AFP report] to eliminate provisions requiring that opposition parties be represented on the high election commission.

The status of the detainees held by the US has also been an issue at controversy in the American courts. In February 2011 District Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] granted a motion to amend [JURIST report] petitions for writs of habeas corpus for four detainees held at Bagram Air Base [official website; JURIST news archive]. In May 2010 a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that detainees held at Bagram Air Base cannot bring habeas corpus challenges in US courts [JURIST report]. In January 2010 the US Department of Defense released a list of names of 645 prisoners then detained at Bagram in response to a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed [JURIST reports] by the ACLU in September 2009.

The court granted certiorari to rule on health care reform law [JURIST report] in three separate cases, reserving five-and-half-hours for oral argument on the issue. The court agreed to hear two hours of arguments on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate issue in Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The court will consider Issue 1, which asks, "whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision." The court also directed parties to brief and argue the question of whether the challenge to PPACA is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act [26 USC § 7421(a)], reserving one hour for argument on that issue. The court consolidated the cases of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and will hear 90 minutes of oral argument on the question of whether the individual mandate provision can be severed from the remainder of the act. Finally, the court will hear one hour of oral argument on the question of Medicaid expansion—Issue 1 in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services: "Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program...?" 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.