Hungary and several other nations have recently embarked on a hunt for suspected war criminals. In August the High Court of Australia denied the Hungarian government's request [JURIST report] to extradite Charles Zentai, an Australian citizen, back to his native Hungarian land based on the allegation that he had beaten a Jewish teenager to death in Hungary in 1944. Earlier in August Slovakian authorities filed charges against a 97-year-old Hungarian man arrested [JURIST reports] in Budapest in July on allegations of abusing and helping deport thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. In May, a US immigration court ordered the deportation of former SS member Anton Geiser [JURIST report] to Austria for serving as an armed guard at the Sachsenhausen and the Buchenwald concentration camps during World War II. The recent action by Hungarian officials may have been prompted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) [advocacy website], a Jewish human rights organization committed to finding and prosecuting Holocaust war criminals, which initially called on Hungary [JURIST report] in April to prosecute former Nazi Laszlo Csatary.

Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected ... [The Colemans] allege that the City's "planning and zoning code approval criteria, facially and as applied by the City Council," do not sufficiently guide or limit the City Council's discretion in rendering decisions ... The Colemans further allege that they have agreed to comply with all the conditions that city zoning staff identified in recommending they be issued a permit; that the Council has issued permits to other tattoo parlors; and that they will comply with all applicable laws ... If we accept these factual allegations as true, as we must for purposes of assessing a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, then the Colemans have stated a claim under the First Amendment.

Last month the Arizona Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a state law requiring all public officials to be proficient in English is constitutional, holding that the English language law advanced the legitimate state interest of ensuring that public officials could perform their basic duties and communicate with constituents who only speak English. The court based its ruling on a provision of the Arizona constitution that codifies English as the official language of the state.

This recent lawsuit in Connecticut raises the first Chiapas massacre issue of its kind in the US, and has revived a brutal history that the international legal community has left unconsidered for the last three years. In 2009 the Mexico Supreme Court of Justice [official website, in Spanish] ordered the release [JURIST report] of 20 men and a retrial of six others convicted in connection with the 1997 killings. Those 26 were part of 45 rebel sympathizers originally convicted on charges of assault, aggravated homicide, and carrying military firearms. However, the Mexican court found that the evidence of such charges was obtained illegally, and therefore in violation of the Constitution of Mexico [text, PDF]. Prior to the massacre, tensions had long-existed between the federal government and the Chiapas people over the widespread poverty and ethnic inequality in the state.

Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison [JURIST report] for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled in March that the victims of Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme would be allowed to pursue a class action [JURIST report]. The trial against Stanford began in January after a judge ruled that he was competent to stand trial, overruling a previous holding to the contrary [JURIST reports]. In February 2011 Stanford accused [JURIST report] several federal agents of having deprived his constitutional rights by using abusive law-enforcement methods. Stanford was first indicted [JURIST report] in 2009.

The use of heavy weapons by the Government and the shelling of populated areas have resulted in high numbers of civilian casualties, mass displacement of civilians inside and outside the country and a devastating humanitarian crisis. I am concerned that they may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am equally concerned about violations by anti-government forces, including murder, extrajudicial execution and torture as well as the recently increased use of improvised explosive devices. Last month, the Security Council concluded that the conditions to extend the mandate of the UN Observer Mission have not been fulfilled resulting in the ending of operations on 19 August. I am deeply shocked by the reports of the massacre in Daraya and I urge an immediate and thorough investigation into this incident...

The UN has called for an improvement in human rights situations throughout the world. In August an independent UN human rights expert condemned [JURIST report] Israel's dismissal of a civil suit brought by the family of an American peace activist. Also that month a UN human rights expert condemned [JURIST report] Iraq for the executions of 26 people and urged the government of Iraq to halt all executions and ensure that all criminal defendants have fair trials. Ban expressed concern [JURIST report] about Iran's human rights conditions and nuclear program during a visit to Tehran in August and also stressed the importance of international cooperation. In May the UN Human Rights Council [official website] announced that it would hold a special session [JURIST report] to discuss the situation in Syria after the massacre in Houla [JURIST report].

Last month the Ukrainian Supreme Court [official website, in Ukrainian] upheld Tymoshenko's abuse of office conviction [JURIST report], reasoning that there would be no basis to rule in favor of the former prime minister and that the prison sentence is appropriate considering the charges against her. During the appeal the government denied allegations that the criminal proceedings against Tymoshenko were a measure initiated by Yanukovych to prevent her from participating in the October elections. The decision came only a day after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] held a hearing [JURIST report] on Tymoshenko's appeal. Last week Ukrainian prosecutors urged the Supreme Court not to hear her appeal [JURIST report]. Prosecutors told the court that Tymoshenko's trial had already established her guilt in the case, and asked the judges to let stand a seven-year prison sentence [JURIST report] in the case. Tymoshenko was not present at the hearing due to health concerns. The hearing has been delayed [JURIST report] in the past due to Tymoshenko's absence. Yanukovych was narrowly elected [JURIST report] over Tymoshenko in 2010.

Oil is fueling Kazakhstan's growing economy, but the government and companies ignore the basic rights of workers who do the difficult and often dangerous work of bringing Kazakhstan's oil to market. Workers' rights are being trampled and they have nowhere to turn to resolve labor disputes.

Kazakhstan has drawn criticism recently from the international community for its human rights record. In August HRW urged the government of Kazakhstan on to ensure that the upcoming trials of two political activists and an oil worker comport with international legal standards [JURIST report] for fair trials. In July UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay 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 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 Kazakhstan sentenced [JURIST report] 13 out of 37 defendants to between three and seven years of imprisonment for their participation in unrest that occurred last December. 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.

The dispute over who will try Saif al-Islam has soured relations between Libya and the ICC. In August Saif al-Islam said that he would prefer a trial in the ICC [JURIST report] because he felt he could not get a fair trial in Libya. In June four ICC staff members who traveled to Libya to speak with Saif al-Islam were detained [JURIST report] by Libyan security forces. They were in custody for nearly four weeks. Upon her release [JURIST report], ICC lawyer Melinda Taylor said she did not believe Saif al-Islam would receive a fair trial in the country. Three officials from the ICC and the Australian ambassador to Libya were able to visit [JURIST report] and assess the condition of the four detained ICC staff members after their detention. A judicial source in Libya told reporters shortly after their detention that the four could remain in "preventative" detention [JURIST report] for 45 days while an investigation is conducted. The four staff members were detained after Taylor was accused of attempting to give documents to Saif al-Islam that were from his former aid, Mohammed Ismail, who has been in hiding since the Libyan conflict began.