Forrest issued an injunction against the law in May, and clarified in the following weeks that her injunction should be interpreted broadly [JURIST reports]. Several civil rights groups have praised her decision and have circulated petitions [advocacy website] arguing that the government should not appeal the injunction. Lawyers for the government filed their appeal [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] in August. US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011.

Investigations have been ongoing since the unrest. In February 2011, the red shirts petitioned [JURIST report] the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website; JURIST backgrounder] to launch a preliminary investigation into whether the government committed crimes against humanity during the 2010 protests. The application for petition [text, PDF] cited specific evidence developing a substantial basis to show that international crimes of murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, other inhumane acts and persecution were committed in conjunction with the suppression of red shirt protest. In 2010 the red shirts initiated the protests [JURIST report] against the Thai government calling for elections. The protests ended two months later when protesters surrendered [JURIST report] to the police.

Immigration law [JURIST backgrounder] has became a hot button issue as many states, Arizona being the first, have passed laws giving state and local officials more power to police illegal immigration. In August the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Alabama's controversial immigration law [HB 56, PDF], upheld a few sections of the law and rejected part of Georgia's immigration law [HB 87, text]. That same month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] on two anti-illegal immigrant laws enacted in 2006 by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which deny permits to businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords who extend housing to them. In July a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Carolina [official website] declined to lift an injunction [JURIST report] against South Carolina's controversial immigration law [SB 20 materials], despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona v. United States.

Ethiopia has been criticized by the international community for its human rights record. In August Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged the government to release [JURIST report] 17 prominent Muslim leaders who were arrested in July in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, arguing that the Ethiopian government has used its anti-terrorism law [Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009, text] as a tool to crack down on dissent, particularly dissent amongst the nation's Muslims, who constitute 30 percent of Ethiopia's population. In July UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] expressed concern that Ethiopia is intimidating journalists [JURIST report]. Earlier that month Amnesty International [advocacy website] criticized [JURIST report] the imprisonment of 20 activists in Ethiopia under the nation's anti-terrorism law. In June the Ethiopian Federal High Court [official website, in Amharic] convicted [JURIST report] 24 journalists, political opposition leaders and others under the anti-terrorism law.

In 2007, the Queen's Bench Division of the England and Wales High Court ruled [JURIST report] in a similar way in the case of two inmates who were serving indeterminate prison sentences without the means to prove their rehabilitation. Even after serving their minimum sentence, the two inmates were detained because they could not show any evidence of rehabilitation due to lack of such programs. IPP sentences were introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [Sec. 225 text] and became effective in April 2005.

[JURIST] Pakistan Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf announced on Tuesday that he will allow Switzerland to reopen corruption charges against President Asif Ali Zardari [official website]. Appearing before the Supreme Court [official website] in connection with the ongoing standoff between Pakistan's judiciary and executive officials regarding Zardari's case, Ashraf agreed to draft a letter [Dawn report] to Switzerland by September 25 that will enable the case to be reopened. The corruption case is thought to involve approximately USD $60 million. In June the Supreme Court ordered Ashraf to reopen the case [JURIST report] by writing the letter to Swiss authorities. However, at the end of August, Ashraf appeared in court to explain why the Supreme Court should not charge him with contempt [JURIST report] for failure to write the letter.

These proceedings in Pakistan exemplify the mounting tension in the country between the judicial and executive branches of government. In August the Supreme Court granted Ashraf three additional weeks [JURIST report] to urge Switzerland to reopen the old corruption case against Zardari. Some have argued that the judiciary in Pakistan is becoming too powerful. The former prime minister Yousef Raza Gilani [BBC profile] was disqualified from being a member of Parliament after an April contempt conviction [JURIST reports] and removed from office when he declined to follow the same court order that has been given to Ashraf. In early August the government announced that it will petition the high court to review its decision nullifying [JURIST reports] the Contempt of Court Bill 2012 which was passed to shield the country's new prime minister from contempt charges. The bill was passed by the upper [AFP report] and lower houses of the national parliament and signed [JURIST reports] by Zardari in July. The court had ordered [JURIST report] the new prime minister in late June to investigate the corruption allegations against the president. Ashraf, like his predecessor, has argued that the president is immune from prosecution under the country's constitution.

Protests and demonstrations in Bahrain have been ongoing since February 2011 [JURIST report]. Earlier this month the government of Bahrain announced that it would pursue legal proceedings [JURIST report] against the al Wefaq [official website, in Arabic] political party, which it labels an opposition group, for engaging in anti-government protests in the face of a ban [JURIST report] of those activities. Also this month, a civilian court in Bahrain upheld lengthy prison sentences [JURIST report] for 20 opposition and human rights activists, including eight life sentences. At the end of August a Bahraini appeals court overturned the conviction [JURIST report] of prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab [JURIST news archive]. In July Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged the government [JURIST report] of Bahrain to release all prisoners of conscience [press release] immediately. The Bahrain Information Affairs authority announced in July 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.

Forrest issued an injunction against the law in May, and clarified in the following weeks that her injunction should be interpreted broadly [JURIST reports]. Several civil rights groups have praised her decision and have circulated petitions [advocacy website] arguing that the government should not appeal the injunction. Lawyers for the government filed their appeal [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] in August. US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011.

The five male defendants steadfastly denied the contents of their "confessions" made before the police. Four said they signed them under torture; Kartachi had refused to sign his, explaining at the trial that he had refused to sign because the police had never interrogated him about the events of that evening. Nassimi told Human Rights Watch that she signed her statement without reading it because she did not have her glasses, and learned only later that in it she had confessed to biting and hitting a police officer, a statement she denies making and that she denied in court. The case file included written statements by police officers that they had been injured while dispersing the demonstration, with medical reports to support their claims. However, the officers in these reports did not identify the individuals who they say assaulted them, except for the officer who accused Nassimi of biting him, Messaoudi and Bendjelloun said.

By law a judge cannot admit a statement made under coercion, but judges in Morocco have had difficulty maintaining independence from the other branches of government. In May a group of Moroccan judges signed a petition urging judicial independence [JURIST report] from Morocco's monarchy and parliament. Despite constitutional reforms to weaken the monarchy's power over the government, Moroccans continue to question [JURIST reports] the amount the monarchy controls the other branches.