Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] remains a controversial topic in California. In February, Judge Jeffrey White, also of the Northern District of California, made a similar ruling [text, PDF] when he found that DOMA is unconstitutional when used as a method to deny a lesbian federal employee insurance benefits for her spouse. In particular, White opined that DOMA "violates [the employee's] right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the [US] Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse." Also in February, proponents of Proposition 8 requested a new hearing [petition, PDF] before the full US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website]. The request came after a three-judge panel for the circuit voted 2-1 to overturn the voter-approved law [JURIST report], finding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder].

This is a crucial time for human rights in the country. ... The difficulties Chad has faced for many years are severe but they are not insurmountable, the Government has a difficult task in improving the human rights situation in the country and my discussions during my visit have convinced me of their political will to do so. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stands ready to help in any way we can.

In February 2008 Amnesty International [advocacy website] accused the Chadian government [JURIST report] of using its declared state of emergency to clamp down on journalists and members of peaceful opposition parties. Chadian President Idriss Deby [BBC profile] had declared a state of emergency [JURIST report] a week earlier, citing increased violence between government forces and rebels in the capital city of N'Djamena. Earlier that month, then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour urged the Chadian government and rebel forces to follow humanitarian law and respect human rights [JURIST report] as fighting continued for a fourth day after rebels entered the capital city of N'Djamena in an attempt to overthrow Deby. An estimated 20,000 civilians fled the capital [NYT report] as the violence escalated.

The legislation was first proposed [JURIST report] at the end of March. Bouterse's trial has been ongoing since 2008. In April 2008, a military tribunal in Suriname ruled [JURIST report] that all suspects involved in a 1982 massacre must stand trial, including Bouterse. Bouterse's trial began [JURIST report] in July 2008 with former bodyguard Onno Flohr testifying that Bouterse was present at the killings of 15 political opponents, including lawyers, journalists, professors, military officers and businessmen, accused of plotting against the government and that the other members of the firing squad were ordered to fire under the threat of death. In 2009, the trial of the former dictator resumed [JURIST report] with testimony by a former prison warden that he brought a leader of a 1982 military coup to an army barracks for execution.

The decision to allow the construction of dams in Patagonia has been a controversial one. In June 2011, a Chilean appeals court ordered the temporary suspension [JURIST report] of the USD $10 billion HidroAysen project, approving three petitions challenging government authorization of the dam construction and granted the plaintiffs' petition for injunction. The court lifted the temporary suspension [Reuters report] in October 2011 allowing work on the project to move forward and spurring a constitutional challenge by environmentalists.

After Saif al-Islam's arrest in November, Libyan leader Prime Minister Abdurrahim al-Keib vowed that he would receive a fair trial [JURIST reports]. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in October that he has evidence against Saif al-Islam [JURIST report] for his role in planning attacks on Libyan civilians. Ocampo says that there is "substantial evidence" that Saif al-Islam hired mercenaries to assist him in carrying out plans to attack demonstrators that protested the rule of his father. In February JURIST Guest Columnist D Wes Rist of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law discussed the confusion [JURIST op-ed] surrounding Saif al-Islam's prosecution, noting that, "[a]ny attempt extend the reach of the ICC into areas it was not created to address runs the risk of weakening the overall authority of the Court and the willingness of member states to comply with ICC orders."

Connecticut has executed only one person since the federal moratorium on executions lapsed in 1981. If the bill is signed into law, Connecticut will become the fifth state in the past five years to abolish the death penalty. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 34 states retain its use. The death penalty remains a controversial issue worldwide. According to an Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] report [text, PDF], the number of countries using the death penalty dropped in 2009 [JURIST report], but more than 700 people were executed in 18 countries, with the most executions carried out in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US.

Debate over the law has been ongoing since Congress passed [JURIST report] comprehensive health care reform in March 2010. The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments in the case of United States Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida over the course of an unprecedented three days last month. On day one of oral arguments [JURIST report], the court heard arguments on the issue of whether the PPACA is is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 (AIA) [text]. On day two [JURIST report], the court heard arguments focused specifically on the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" provision [text], which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a penalty. On the final day [JURIST report], the court heard arguments on the issue of whether the "individual mandate" can be severed from the rest of the PPACA. The Supreme Court agreed to rule on [JURIST report] the health care law case in November of last year on appeal from US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website], which ruled in August that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but severable [JURIST report], upholding the rest of the law.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been an ongoing issue in many countries. Last month the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] urged member states to put an end to sexual orientation-based violence [JURIST report] and discrimination. In a video address, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] acknowledged that sexual orientation and gender identity are sensitive subjects, but said action needs to be taken because lives are at stake. The Russian lower house of Parliament began consideration of a controversial bill last month that bans the spread of "homosexual propaganda" to minors [JURIST report]. The bill calls for fines of up to 500,000 rubles (USD $16,500) for promoting the homosexual lifestyle and appears to be aimed at media outlets which lawmakers blame for "promoting gay lifestyles as 'normal behavior.'" The UN has attempted to pass resolutions aimed at ending sexuality discrimination worldwide but has faced difficulty passing resolutions on gay rights issues. Last year the UNHRC passed the "Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity" resolution [text, PDF], which is the first resolution to call for an end to sexuality discrimination worldwide [JURIST report]. In 2010 Ban called for countries around the world to abolish laws discriminating against gay and lesbian individuals [JURIST report]. A year earlier, the UN passed a gay rights declaration [JURIST report] calling on states to end criminalization and persecution of homosexuals. This declaration was recalled by the new resolution.

The Department's position is that the most common way for dealing with this situation would be for the court to take the case en banc so it can address the heightened scrutiny analysis on the merits. ... [b]ut the judgment that the President and the Attorney General have made is that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard precisely because rational basis would permit and arguably even require the court to disregard the facts of what actually happened, of what actually motivated the statute, and the reality of the history of discrimination against this particular group.

The DOJ is appealing rulings by Judge Joseph Tauro of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts in two separate cases, one brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and another by an advocacy group representing married LGBT citizens [JURIST reports]. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in both cases that DOMA's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional because it interferes with the states' right to define marriage [JURIST report]. The Obama administration last month petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] for an expedited en banc review [JURIST report] of two test cases on the constitutionality of DOMA.

At this time, the Defense cannot find a single portion of the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief that is not subject to dispute with the Defense. The manner of presentation of material in the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief takes matters out of context, misrepresents them, misinterprets them, and generally alters or interprets them in such a way that the Defense cannot agree or adopt any without compromising the presumption of innocence or the right of the Accused to a fair trial. The Defense rejects all charges as unfounded and will put the Prosecution to their burden in proving the case set out in the allegations. Mr. Mladic contests the truth and veracity of all factual assertions made by the Prosecution and any conclusions derived therefrom. ... [T]he Defense takes note for the record its understanding that it is under no legal obligation to enter agreements with the Prosecution to reduce the time and scope of trial to the detriment of its own client. Mr. Mladic is entitled to have trial on the time honored principle that the Prosecution is the party with the burden and obligation to prove the entirety of its case beyond any reasonable doubt on its own.

In February, Mladic accused the tribunal of bias and sought to delay his trial [JURIST reports] once again. A three-judge panel for the ICTY accepted a request brought by prosecutors to reduce the number of crimes [JURIST report] they intend to prove against Mladic from 196 to 106 in December, in an effort to accelerate the proceedings. The ICTY prosecutor refused to seek further appeal [JURIST report] of the tribunal's refusal to split Mladic's trial into separate actions: one for his conduct during the Srebrenica massacre, where approximately 8,000 people were killed, and one for all of his other charges during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive]. ICTY prosecutors had hoped splitting the trial would enable them to convict Mladic of some charges before his death, as he is reportedly of ill health [JURIST report]. Serbian authorities arrested Mladic after a 16-year search [JURIST report] in May of last year.