Last month a Ukrainian appeals court postponed [JURIST report] the appeal hearing challenging Tymoshenko's corruption conviction and seven-year sentence. This marked the third postponement in that case. The appeal was last postponed in June [JURIST report]. Her tax evasion trial began [JURIST report] in April but has also been postponed several times. In May the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ended an investigation [JURIST report] into the health care conditions of Tymoshenko, finding that the Ukrainian government provided her with adequate care. She previously alleged that prison guards were beating her and she refused to be treated [JURIST report] by prison doctors for back problems, believing they were under the direction of political rival President Viktor Yanukovych. Ukrainian prosecutors have also indicated that she will face charges [JURIST reports] in a 1996 contract killing.

By limiting the scope and duration of the commercial agreements among Verizon and the cable companies while at the same time allowing Verizon and T-Mobile to proceed with their spectrum acquisitions, the department has provided the right remedy for competition and consumers. The Antitrust Division's enforcement action ensures that robust competition between Verizon and the cable companies continues now and in the future as technological change alters the telecommunications landscape.

Verizon has been involved in litigation with the federal government recently concerning new FCC net neutrality rules [text, PDF] that allow the government to regulate Internet traffic to preserve the Internet as a free and open platform of communication. In April 2011 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] dismissed an appeal [JURIST report] by Verizon and Metro PCS [corporate website] challenging the net neutrality rules. Verizon filed its appeal in January 2011 arguing that the net neutrality rules gave the FCC more authority than Congress intended to give it [JURIST report]. The FCC approved the net neutrality rules [JURIST report] in October 2009.

Facebook has frequently been under scrutiny for violating privacy laws in Germany. Mirroring Caspar's position, Patricia Rogosch, a research assistant for the EU Project CONSENT Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law, wrote in August 2011 that the Facebook facial recognition feature violates European data protection laws [JURIST comment] because the software was introduced without notifying users and it requires users to opt out instead of opting in. In July 2010 Caspar initiated legal proceedings [JURIST report] against Facebook for accessing and saving non-users' personal information, stated the social networking site could be fined tens of thousands of euros for violating Germany's strict privacy laws. Caspar was alerted that non-users had been contacted by Facebook because their e-mail addresses were listed in Facebook users' e-mail contacts.

Given the secrecy surrounding the investigation, it is critical that the Kazakhstan authorities ensure the proceedings against Kozlov, Sapargaly, and Aminov strictly adhere to international fair-trial standards. The trial should be open to observers, held in an official language that all the defendants can understand, and the defendants should be allowed to challenge evidence presented against them and cross-examine witnesses.

Kazakhstan [JURIST news archive] has drawn criticism recently from the international community for its human rights record. In July UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called for an independent probe [JURIST report] into the December unrest between oil workers and an oil company. In June HRW demanded [JURIST report] that the National Security Committee of Kazakhstan [official website] publicly disclose the reason for bringing new charges against a group of labor activists and an oil worker who participated in the December unrest. The committee charged them with "calling for the forcible overthrow of the constitutional order." Earlier that month a court in the country sentenced [JURIST report] 13 out of 37 defendants to between three and seven years of imprisonment for their participation in the December unrest. Sixteen of the remaining defendants faced conditional sentences [BBC report] while five defendants were given amnesty and three were acquitted. During the trial, relatives of defendants threw bottles at the judge, claiming that the defendants were subject to torture during the investigation. In April 47 individuals were sentenced [JURIST report] to 15 years imprisonment for their involvement in terrorist attacks and financing extremist activities. However, the trial and information pertaining to it were not entirely accessible to the public, and the lack of transparency has raised concerns of possible human rights violations. In October, Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev [official website, in Kazakh; BBC profile] signed [JURIST report] into law a bill dissolving religious organizations and requiring re-registration. This new bill and its endorsement by the president drew a number of criticisms that the law unnecessarily limits the freedom of religion.

Tony's and Martin's circumstances are deeply moving. Their desire to have control over the ending of their lives demands the most careful and sympathetic consideration, but there are also other important issues to consider. ... It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place. Under our system of government these are matters for Parliament to decide, representing society as a whole, after Parliamentary scrutiny, and not for the court on the facts of an individual case or cases.

The right to die [JURIST news archive] has been a contentious issue around the world. The only European countries that allow euthanasia are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In 2011 the Supreme Court of India ruled passive euthanasia was permitted [JURIST report] under certain circumstances, but rejected a petition for a mercy killing. In 2010 a German court ruled that removing a patient from life support is not a criminal offense [JURIST report] if the patient had previously given consent. In 2009 the Italian president refused to sign an Italian government decree [JURIST report] that would stop the euthanasia of comatose women because it would violate the separation of power overturning a previous court ruling. In 2006 a proposed bill that would legalize the option of assisted suicide in the UK was set aside by the House of Lords following opposition from the public and two physician groups [JURIST reports]. Also in 2006 the US Supreme Court upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Act [JURIST report], the only American state law that allows physician assisted suicide.

The two memos we've asked for may show how the FBI has resolved these unanswered questions. We know about the memos' existence from a talk given by FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann in February. He said that one memo focuses exclusively on the use of GPS tracking, and suggested that it covers questions like whether Jones applies to other forms of transportation like airplanes and boats, and whether it applies at international borders.

Government use of modern technology to monitor and locate citizens has created legal uncertainty recently. Earlier this week the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that police tracking of GPS devices in suspects' cell phones does not constitute an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. Earlier in August, the ACLU announced that their affiliates are sending approximately 375 requests for information in 31 states to reveal how law enforcement uses location data tracking on cell phones [JURIST report], arguing that the warrantless tracking of GPS signals is unconstitutional. In June lawyers for the US Department of Justice defended the warrantless use of GPS devices [JURIST report] on suspects' vehicles despite the Supreme Court ruling in Jones declaring GPS tracking to be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded in Jones that the government's attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Also in January the Supreme Court of California ruled that law enforcement officers can legally search text messages [JURIST report] on a suspect's cell phone without a warrant incident to a lawful custodial arrest.

Illegal immigration has become the focus of much legislative and judicial activity recently. Earlier this month the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a complaint [text, PDF] in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama [official website] challenging [JURIST report] an Alabama law [HB 56 text] designed to restrict the actions of illegal immigrants. In addition to authorizing detention of individuals on reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants, the law provides harsh restrictions on employment for illegal immigrants. Businesses cited multiple times for hiring undocumented workers could lose their business licenses. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants are prohibited from applying for a job, and anyone transporting or harboring undocumented immigrants will be punished by a fine or jail time. The DOJ contended that various provisions of the Alabama immigration legislation are preempted by federal law and violate the Supremacy Clause [text] of the Constitution.

State agencies that provide public benefits ... shall ... to the extent not prohibited by state or federal law, initiate operational, policy, rule and statutory changes necessary to prevent Deferred Action recipients from obtaining eligibility, beyond those available to any person regardless of lawful status, for any taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification, including a driver's license, so that the intent of Arizona voters and lawmakers who enacted laws expressly restricting access to taxpayer funded benefits and state identification are enforced.

The Deferred Action program has been the subject of controversy since the Obama administration initiated it in June. In July JURIST guest columnist Chris Schlag argued [JURIST op-ed] that while Deferred Action is a step in the right direction, comprehensive legislation is necessary to adequately address the complicated issue of immigration. In June Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) [official website] introduced a bill [JURIST report] to block the Deferred Action program from taking effect. Earlier in June Congressman Steve King (R-IA) [official website] announced that he plans to sue the Obama administration [JURIST report] to delay the enforcement of the Deferred Action program.

Rajab was arrested in June [JURIST report] for posting the comments to his Twitter page. He was released on bail [JURIST report] after spending three weeks in prison. Tension between Bahrain's government and protesters has been on the rise since government forces clashed with protesters last year during pro-democracy demonstrations, which have taken place on an almost daily basis since the February 2011 Shiite majority uprising seeking greater political rights from the Sunni monarchy. The Bahrain Information Affairs authority announced last month that they had brought charges against 15 police officers [JURIST report] for alleged "mistreatment of inmates in custody." In June the government announced that it would pay $2.6 million in restitution [JURIST report] to citizens who lost family members during the violent protests to comply with recommendations of an independent commission who concluded that Bahrain authorities had used excessive force and tortured detainees involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations.