Earlier this month Slovakian authorities announced that they have filed new charges against a 97-year-old Hungarian man arrested in Budapest in July on allegations of abusing and helping deport thousands of Jews. The Hungarian man was arrested after the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) [advocacy website], a Jewish human rights organization committed to finding and prosecuting Holocaust war criminals, submitted new evidence [JURIST report] to the Budapest prosecutor's office detailing the war crimes allegedly committed by Ladislaus Csizsik-Csatary, a former senior Hungarian police officer in the Slovakian city of Kosice. Earlier that month Hungarian prosecutors charged Csatary [JURIST report] with the "unlawful torture of human beings," a war crime that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Retired Ohio autoworker John Demjanjuk was convicted in German Court [JURIST report] in May 2011 as an accessory to over 28,000 murders and sentenced to five years in prison, but was released to a nursing home due to his age and deteriorating health. He was deported to Germany [JURIST report] from the US in May 2009 after the US Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal of a 2005 deportation order [JURST reports] by a US immigration judge. Demjanjuk died [JURIST report] in the nursing home in March awaiting an appeal of his conviction.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [official website] and others have also objected to holding the trials of Alwan and Hammadi in federal court, but they have cited security concerns and said they should be prosecuted before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder]. McConnell and others also have said the defendants do not deserve the full protection of the Bill of Rights accorded to civilian defendants. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] has consistently advocated [JURIST report] that terror suspects should be tried in civilian courts, though has not found support from Congress. In April, Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and four other co-conspirators will be tried before a military commission [JURIST report] for their roles in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Holder, who wanted the accused be tried before a federal civilian court [JURIST report], referred the cases to the Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST report] barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US.

Last month Kambiz Behi of Mostafavi & Associates and Edsel Tupaz [corporate profile] of Tupaz & Associates argued that the admittance of the Russian Federation into the WTO will create stronger economic relations [JURIST comment] with the US, as Russian WTO membership would free the US Congress to continue pursuing efforts to promote human rights and the rule of law independent trade relations with Russia, which would be established under WTO regulations. Just last month, for example, Congress approved a bill to sanction Russian officials [JURIST report] who were linked to the death of a Russian lawyer. In April Anna Heatherington, an LLM candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, analyzed the barriers to Russia's WTO membership [JURIST comment], noting that within the Russian Federation opposition to WTO membership exists primarily in the non-energy sectors, and especially from the agricultural sector, which is largely unprepared to compete in a global market. An additional point of concern has been Russia's inability to fully protect intellectual property (IP) rights, as most IP legislation is relatively new and the Russian courts lack experience and competency in IP areas.

Immigration laws [JURIST backgrounder] have became a hot button issue over the past few years when many states, Arizona being the first, passed laws giving their state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. On Monday the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] partially struck down [JURIST report] Alabama and Georgia's immigration laws, but upheld other provisions. On Friday Utah's Attorney General argued that the state's restrictive immigration law should be upheld [JURIST report] in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States. Last month the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] asked [JURIST report] a federal judge to strike down a provision of Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop on Equal Protection grounds. The provision was upheld [JURIST report] by the US Supreme Court but only on the grounds that it did not conflict with the federal government's powers regarding illegal immigration. This decision also struck down two provisions of Arizona's law that made it a crime to be in the state or apply for a job in the state without valid immigration papers and one that allowed police officers to arrest without a warrant people whom they believed had committed a crime which could cause them to be deported. Other states' laws have been challenged as well, but many have been made easier due to the Supreme Court's ruling. Georgia argued [JURIST report] last month that its law is valid under the ruling, while Alabama conceded that some provisions of its law would need to be changed.

Anaya announced that he would visit the US in April to launch the UN's first ever investigation into the rights situation of Native Americans [JURIST report]. Anaya's goal was to look into the rights of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, and determine how the US's endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [text, PDF] has affected the rights of these groups of people. The US endorsed [JURIST report] the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010, after being one of four member states originally opposed to the treaty when it was adopted by the UN [JURIST report] in 2007. The other countries opposed to it, Canada, New Zealand and Australia [JURIST reports], have all also changed their views and have since endorsed the treaty. This non-binding treaty outlines the human rights issues faced by the more than 370 million indigenous people throughout the world and encourages nations not to discriminate against them. The declaration was debated for more than two decades before it was passed.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA requires the [FWS] to determine separately that a specified activity will take only “small numbers” of marine mammals, and that the take will have only a "negligible impact" on the species or stock. We hold that the Service permissibly determined that only "relatively small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses would be taken in relation to the size of their larger populations, because the agency separately determined that the anticipated take would have only a "negligible impact" on the mammals' annual rates of recruitment or survival. The "small numbers" determination was consistent with the statute and was not arbitrary and capricious.

The FWS has been involved in several legal disputes in recent years. In October the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the FWS is not obligated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a contributor to global warming [JURIST news archive], in order to protect polar bears. In June 2011 a federal judge upheld a decision [JURIST report] by the FWS in 2008 to classify polar bears as "threatened" on the endangered species list. Although polar bears are an unendangered population now, it is predicted that melting ice caps will kill 10,000 of the species [AP report].

The Guatemalan civil war, which lasted from 1960-1996 [BBC timeline] 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. A Guatemalan judge ruled in May that former dictator Efrain Rios Montt will have a second genocide trial [JURIST report] for ordering a 1982 massacre which killed 201 people. In March, a former military official to was sentenced to 6,060 years in prison [JURIST report] for his role in the massacre. Earlier that month a Guatemalan judge denied amnesty [JURIST report] to Rios Montt, who was in power during the Dos Erres massacre, but denied any involvement. In February, JURIST guest columnist and Director of the Guatemala Human Rights Commission Kelsey Alford-Jones opined [JURIST op-ed] that prosecuting Rios Montt was necessary to bring justice to his victims, as well as strengthen the Guatemalan judiciary.

The ICTB has continued to arrest and indict individuals accused of war crimes in connection to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Last month the ICTB indicted Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, secretary general of the JI on seven counts of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] he allegedly committed during the war. Bangladesh police arrested [JURIST report] Mir Kashem Ali for allegedly being an auxiliary to the Pakistani armed forces and running a torture facility at the Dalim Hotel during the war. The ICTB issued earlier that day an arrest warrant against the chairman of Diganta Media Corporation and senior leader of the JI. He was the eighth high-profile leader who has been indicted for the crimes committed during the war. A week earlier, the ICTB indicted [JURIST report] former Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Abdul Alim on 17 counts of crimes against humanity, Bangladesh's national news agency reported. In May, the ICTB indicted [JURIST report] Matiur Rahman Nizami, the chief of the JI, and Abdul Quader Molla, Nizami's deputy, for alleged human rights atrocities committed during the war. During the same month, Ghulam Azam, former head of the JI, was indicted [JURIST report] by the ICTB for similar charges.

This is the latest development in the ongoing reproductive rights controversy [JURIST backgrounder]. In July a judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] declined to block enforcement of a new Arizona abortion regulation [HB 2036 materials; JURIST report] that will ban abortions after 20 weeks unless there is a medical emergency. Earlier in July, a federal judge blocked a Mississippi law [JURIST report] that would have effectively shut down the state's only abortion clinic. Two weeks ago, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt appealed a ruling [JURIST report] by a district court judge that held that an abortion ultrasound bill is unconstitutional. Earlier last month, Louisiana Governor Bob Jindal signed a bill increasing abortion restrictions in the state [JURIST report]. In May, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs [JURIST report] that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy. Earlier that month, a judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled [JURIST report] that a law restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. In March, Utah passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours [JURIST report] prior to obtaining the procedure.

Earlier this week lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists filed a lawsuit against Russian authorities [JURIST report] in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] seeking €200,000 over the Russian Justice Ministry's refusal to register their organization's house for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games [official website]. Last week a city court in Moscow refused to overturn a ban on gay pride marches for the next century [JURIST report], affirming the Moscow municipal government ruling that any public gatherings that could be classified as gay pride marches are prohibited from March 2012 until May 2112. Earlier this month the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] expressed concern about draft legislation passed in the Liberian Senate that would criminalize homosexual behavior [JURIST reports] in Liberia [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In June Uganda's government banned 38 NGOs accused of promoting gay rights [JURIST report].

Both the defendant's and the government's interpretations of the statute are plausible. It is unclear from the text and legislative history of the IGBA whether every state gambling offense would permit a federal conviction. ... It is equally uncertain whether, in enacting the statute, Congress foresaw that poker businesses would be prosecutable under it. ... In light of these ambiguities, the rule of lenity requires that the defendant's interpretation be adopted, and his conviction be dismissed. His acts did not constitute a federal crime.

In December the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] clarified its stance on online gambling [JURIST report] in a memorandum opinion holding online non-sports related gambling that crosses state or international borders is not covered by the Wire Act of 1961 [text]. In November New Jersey passed Public Question 1 [JURIST report] by a 65 percent margin, amending the New Jersey constitution [text] to legalize sports gambling, but earlier this month professional and college sports leagues filed a lawsuit against the state [JURIST reports] seeking to enjoin the law as a violation of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) [text]. In 2010 the Washington Supreme Court [official website] ruled that a state ban on online gambling [JURIST report] is constitutional. That month the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] delivered three judgments striking down gambling restrictions [JURIST report] in Germany because the regulations were not designed to protect public interest. However the ECJ upheld a Swedish law restricting Internet gambling [JURIST report].

Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] highlighted the importance [press release] of the Supreme Court's upcoming decisions in military cases earlier this month. HRW criticized military tribunals for being inadequate venues to try soldiers that abuse and kill civilians. The rights group noted that between 2007 and 2012 5,000 human rights investigations were opened, but only 38 military personnel were convicted. A report issued by the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego (TBI) [official website] in July alleged that complaints about violations committed by Mexico's military forces [JURIST report] have been on the rise.

Together, the Civil Rights Division and the US Attorney's Office work to enforce the law, which protects these basic principles:

1. Expanding opportunity and access for all people - the opportunity to learn, the opportunity to earn, the opportunity to live where one chooses, the opportunity to move up the economic ladder, the opportunity to realize one's highest and best use.
2. Ensuring that the fundamental infrastructure of democracy is in place—by protecting the right to vote, and by ensuring that communities have effective and democratically accountable policing.
3. And protecting the most vulnerable among us so that they can move out of the shadows and into the sunshine—by ensuring they can live in their communities free from fear of exploitation, discrimination, and violence.

Immigration laws [JURIST backgrounder] have became a hot button issue over the past few years when many states, Arizona being the first, passed laws giving their state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. On Monday the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] partially struck down [JURIST reports] Alabama and Georgia's immigration laws, but upheld other provisions. On Friday Utah's Attorney General argued that the state's restrictive immigration law should be upheld [JURIST report] in light of the US Supreme Court's recent decision in Arizona v. United States [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. Last month the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] asked [JURIST report] a federal judge to strike down a provision of Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop on Equal Protection grounds. The provision was upheld [JURIST report] by the US Supreme Court but only on the grounds that it did not conflict with the federal government's powers regarding illegal immigration. This decision also struck down two provisions of Arizona's law that made it a crime to be in the state or apply for a job in the state without valid immigration papers and one that allowed police officers to arrest without a warrant people whom they believed had committed a crime which could cause them to be deported. Other states' laws have been challenged as well, but many have been made easier due to the Supreme Court's ruling. Georgia argued [JURIST report] last month that its law is valid under the ruling, while Alabama conceded that some provisions of its law would need to be changed.

The VRA has been the subject of legal controversy recently. On Monday the DOJ approved Virginia's voter ID law [JURIST report] finding that it does not violate the VRA. In July attorneys in two cases challenging the constitutionality of the 2006 renewal of the VRA filed petitions on Friday with the Supreme Court asking it to settle the issue in its upcoming term. Earlier in July the US District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments [JURIST report] in a lawsuit filed by Texas challenging the constitutionality of the VRA. In June JURIST guest columnist Chris Elmendorf opined [JURIST op-ed] that recent statistical findings may contribute to courts declaring Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, while simultaneously strengthening the provisions in Section 2 of the Act which requires minority plaintiffs to prove that the challenged electoral structures prevent them from "participat[ing] in the political process and elect[ing] candidates of their choice" on equal terms with other voters.

Human rights groups and have expressed concern in the past about illegal detention in China. In June Human Rights Watch reported that China's chengguan, a para-police organization charged with enforcing non-criminal administrative regulations, is abusing its power [JURIST report]. The report indicated that although the chengguan are not authorized to arrest citizens or use excessive force, they frequently do both. In March China's National People's Congress (NPC) passed a law [JURIST report] allowing police to detain certain suspects for up to six months in secret detention facilities commonly known as "black jails."In July 2010 Amnesty International urged [JURIST report] the Chinese government to launch an independent investigation into law enforcement conduct during the July 2009 Xinjiang riots [JURIST news archive], accusing police of executing arbitrary arrests and employing excessive force.