New York City has a Department of Investigation staffed by full-time public employees who investigate city personnel, and the resources to pay for it. The City of Rialto has neither, and so must rely on the occasional services of private individuals such as Mr. Filarsky. There is no reason Rialto’s internal affairs investigator should bedenied the qualified immunity enjoyed by the ones who work for New York.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in January. JURIST Guest Columnist Jeffrey White argued recently [JURIST op-ed that the Supreme Court should not extend the doctrine of qualified immunity in § 1983 cases beyond those available at common law when the section was enacted

The statutory counterclaim we have considered enables courts to resolve patent disputes so that the FDA can fulfill its statutory duty to approve generic drugs that do not infringe patent rights. The text and context of the provision demonstrate that a generic company can employ the counterclaim to challenge a brand's overbroad use code. We accordingly hold that Caraco may bring a counterclaim seeking to "correct" Novo's use code "on the ground that" the '358 patent "does not claim ... an approved method of using the drug"—indeed, does not claim two.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in December. JURIST Guest Columnist Carlos Angulo argued recently that the Federal Circuit decided the case incorrectly [JURIST op-ed]. He argued that if the Supreme Court had affirmed the Federal Circuit, "it [would] significantly undermine Congress's goal in the so-called Hatch-Waxman Amendments—ensuring patients' access to affordable generic drugs."

Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling affirms a decision made by the Rotterdam District Court in October 2011. A federal indictment against Sabir K. [AP report] was issued by US attorney Loretta Lynch of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website] in June 2011, shortly after he was originally extradited from Pakistan to the Netherlands in April. K. was arrested last year in Pakistan based on suspicions of plotting a suicide attack against American soldiers in Afghanistan, possession of guns and "destructive material" during attacks on US troops, and also for allegedly aiding al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive] between 2004 and 2010.

In February, Ibori pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to all 10 counts of fraud and money laundering in a UK court. In October 2010, the Dubai Court of First Instance [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Ibori could be extradited to the UK to face charges of money laundering, fraud and embezzlement. Ibori was arrested in the United Arab Emirates by INTERPOL [official website] in May 2010. Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) [official website] accused Ibori of stealing Delta state funds worth $292 million during his time in office. These funds were allegedly filtered through banks in the UK, which led the UK Metropolitan Police [official website] to issue a warrant for his arrest. Ibori appealed the decision to Dubai's Civil Court of Appeal.

The Bahraini government has so far failed to ensure accountability that guarantees truth, justice and adequate reparation for the victims of arbitrary arrests, torture and unfair trials, as well as for those injured during protests, or the relatives of those killed. Hardly any efforts have been made to implement recommendations relating to national reconciliation, ending discrimination against the Shi'a community, especially in the security and armed forces and ending incitement to hatred in the government-controlled media. The government has dedicated significant resources to appoint international experts to investigate human rights violations committed during and after the February and March 2011 antigovernment protests and to provide advice on human rights reforms.

In early March, based on a report of excessive force by Bahraini security forces, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] called on the government [JURIST report] to investigate the allegations. During that same month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report, similar to the report by BICI about human rights violations against demonstrators, alleging that Bahrain is convicting hundreds of opposition activists [JURIST report] in unfair and politically motivated trials. In February, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] also urged the Bahraini government to respect protesters' rights [JURIST report] and stressed that excessive use of force by the government against civilian demonstrators is strictly forbidden in international law. Pillay made a similar call to the government in December when she said that protesters who were detained during peaceful protests should be released [JURIST report].

The 1940 killings have long been a point of tension between the Russian and Polish governments. The Soviets originally blamed the Nazis and Russia only acknowledged responsibility in 1990. In February 2010, the Polish government joined this class-action lawsuit [JURIST report] against Russia filed in the ECHR by these 13 Polish citizens who are relatives of the victims. In January 2009, the victims' relatives were denied an appeal [JURIST report] to the Russian Supreme Court [official website, in Russian] to reopen investigations into the killings. The court reasoned that the Soviet-era criminal code to be applied to the killings places a 10-year statute of limitations on the proceedings. In 2010 the Russian government made public [JURIST report] documents [materials, in Russian] relating to the 1940 Katyn Massacre. Among the documents is a 1940 note signed by Joseph Stalin ordering the execution of Polish "nationalists and counter-revolutionaries."

The proposed amendments are directly in line with a statement [JURIST report] by the UK's highest judge in October that found ECHR decisions are not binding. In February, a UK think tank urged the country to withdraw [JURIST report] from the ECHR altogether in favor of a national high court. Tensions between the court and the country have been high for years due to the UK's lack of agreement with some of the court's rulings. In 2005 the court found that British prisoners should be given the right to vote [JURIST report]. The ECHR and the UK have also clashed over the issue of extradition of terror suspects. In February 2011 the UK government's independent reviewer of terror laws published a report [JURIST report] saying that rulings from the ECHR made it difficult to remove foreign terror suspects from Britain. The ECHR refused to grant the government's request that a terror suspect be required to show that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to ill-treatment. The ruling lowered the suspect's burden of proving that he would be faced with ill-treatment upon returning to his home country. In July 2008, the ECHR stayed the extradition of four terrorism suspects [JURIST report] from the UK to the US, holding that potential punishment could violate Convention's provisions on the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment.

Neiss's ruling last month found that the law was unconstitutional because it went against the very idea of suffrage by preventing citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. Days later, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] appealed the injunction [JURIST report] on behalf the defendants in the cases, arguing that the voter ID law is necessary to prevent voter fraud. The current injunction followed a temporary injunction [JURIST report] of the law by Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan who said that the law was more restrictive than similar laws that have been upheld in other states. There have also been two federal challenges to the law since it was first introduced. The Advancement Project [advocacy website] filed a federal lawsuit in February [JURIST report] on behalf of four other rights groups, alleging that the law is unconstitutional because it is racially discriminatory. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Wisconsin and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty [advocacy websites] also filed a federal lawsuit in December [JURIST report]. There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that have passed laws requiring voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 16 states requiring photo ID.

Last month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] urged [JURIST report] Malaysia to take into consideration international human rights standards. In October 2011, after the prime minister's announcement, the Malaysian government released 125 prisoners [JURIST report] who were held in detention under the Restricted Residence Act of 1933. Malaysia's internal security laws were heavily criticized in the past by various human rights organizations. In June 2010, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] recommended [JURIST report] Malaysia repeal or amend its security laws to conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. In 2009, the Abolish ISA Movement [advocacy blog] initiated a demonstration against the law in which 10,000 to 20,000 people participated and resulted in 589 arrests. Of those arrested, 29 were charged [JURIST report] for their involvement in the rallies. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy website] had also called [JURIST report] Malaysia to abolish the ISA in 2008.

The Committee considers that the onus was on the State party to initiate an effective criminal investigation, instead of giving the petitioners the burden of proof in civil proceedings. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which when threats of violence are made, and especially when they are made in public and by a group, it is incumbent upon the State party to investigate with due diligence and expedition.

Racial discrimination has been an ongoing issue in many countries. Last week, Statistics Canada [official website] reported that both the number and rate of police-reported hate crimes declined [JURIST report] in 2010 by 18 percent from the previous year. Significantly, the reported crimes stemming from race or ethnicity decreased by 20 percent while those motivated by religion decreased by 17 percent. More than half of all reported hate crimes, however, were found to be motivated by race. Also last week, a group of minorities in France filed a lawsuit alleging police searches are conducted on the basis of racial profiling [JURIST report], according to a statement made by their lawyers and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) [advocacy website]. The suit alleged that French police unfairly single out minority race individuals for searches and identification checks. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] supported a ban on affirmative action [JURIST report] by upholding a 1996 amendment to the California Constitution that bars preferential treatment for "any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Now, everyone agrees that a pharmaceutical detailer engages in promotion. They tout drugs to doctors. Everyone agrees that there can't be a commitment to issue a prescription. Everyone agrees that a prescription is not an exchange with a pharmaceutical company. But nonetheless, the Respondent argues that pharmaceutical detailers sell drugs directly to doctors as a matter of law.

The Solicitor General argued for the definition of sales presented in their amicus brief [text, PDF], which the court noted differed from the arguments they made to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Anthony Kennedy particularly criticized the Department's updates of its regulations: "[I]t's gone on for 70 years, and you're—instead of doing a regulation, amended regulation, as Justice Breyer indicates, you're filing amicus briefs quietly in different—different courts. It seems to me that's not nearly as fair or straightforward or as candid as—as an agency ought to be." Last summer, the court ruled on another aspect of FLSA's wording [JURIST report]: that the language "filed any complaint" refers to both oral and written complaints.