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.