In June 2011 the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled [JURIST report] that Florida's procedure for imposing the death penalty was unconstitutional. Judge Jose Martinez held [opinion, PDF] that the procedure violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial [Cornell LII backgrounder]. An appeal of that case [text, PDF] has been filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Florida had briefly banned the death penalty in December 2006 under Governor Jeb Bush, after the botched execution [JURIST reports] of Angel Diaz. However, in July 2007 Florida Governor Charlie Crist ended the state's temporary moratorium on executions. The reinstatement came before the implementation of recommended changes [JURIST report], which had been suggested by a death penalty commission convened by Bush.

Conducting trials at Guantanamo Bay has stirred controversy recently, as alleged conspirators of both the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the USS Cole bombing are being tried. In September Military Judge James Pohl ruled [JURIST report] that he did not have the authority to allow media to broadcast al-Nashiri's trial. In February Pohl ruled [JURIST report] in al-Nashiri's case that attorney-client mail that was inspected at Guantanamo Bay can not be released by the Pentagon [official website]. Days before that ruling defense lawyers in the case of another Guantanamo detainee filed a suit [JURIST report] challenging the order for officials to read all legal correspondence for suspected 9/11 conspirators.

We have noted with serious concern that the constitutional reform project would expand the jurisdiction of military or police tribunals, giving them the power to investigate, process and decide on cases of human rights violations which should be under the authority of the ordinary criminal justice system. For instance, although the current project stipulates that criminal military justice institutions will not have jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of enforced disappearances, this detailed and specific listing of crimes - which would fall outside the ambit of the military justice system - allows other international human rights and humanitarian law crimes to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of military justice.

This is not the first time the UN has called on Colombia to make reforms affecting their government and military procedures. In August UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people James Anaya [official website] also urged [JURIST report] the government of Colombia to advance its negotiations with indigenous authorities in northern Cauca regarding the military presence in the area, as well as other pressing issues. In December 2011 the representative to Colombia for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called for a peaceful solution [JURIST report] to the country's ongoing armed conflict involving hostages held by paramilitary rebels. Also, in 2008, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay warned [JURIST report] that Colombia faced continuing human rights struggles, including continued hostage takings, arbitrary arrests, and extrajudicial executions by the military.

Shafiq is one of the many former politicians under Mubarak's regime who are facing corruption charges. In August the former secretary for Mubarak's political party, Safwat El-Sherif, was referred to a criminal court [JURIST report] on corruption charges. He was accused of having abused his office by obtaining real estate at discounted prices and illegally obtaining $49.2 million. In July an Egyptian court rejected pleas to release [JURIST report] Mubarak's two sons while they await trial. Gamal and Alaa Mubarak, along with seven others, were charged [JURIST report] with stock market fraud and using unfair trading practices and illegally manipulating the market. Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life [JURIST report] after an Egyptian court found him guilty of complicity to kill protesters during the Arab Spring protests [JURIST backgrounder]. During the protests that resulted in the overturning of Mubarak's 30-year regime, Mubarak ordered government officials to use gunfire and other violent measures to subdue protesters, causing more than 850 deaths [JURIST report]. Mubarak's trial ended in February with the chief prosecutor asking the court in his closing remarks to issue a death sentence [JURIST reports] against the former ruler.

Guinea-Bissau has experienced instability, resulting in several coups, since gaining independence from Portugal in 1974. In May the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called [JURIST report] that anyone who engaged in violent acts relating to the April 12 coup d'etat should be held accountable for their actions. Two weeks after the coup in April the Security Council called for constitutional order in Guinea-Bissau [JURIST report]. The same month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] demanded immediate restoration [JURIST report] of constitutional order in the country. Pillay hoped to prevent another coup when she urged [JURIST report] the people of Guinea-Bissau in March to refrain from any violence during the upcoming election.

The Constitutions are the fundamental expressions of the will of the people acting in their sovereign capacity. Even laws enacted by the legislature and governor, though they may manifest the popular will of their time, are subordinate to them. Even a temporary infringement of fundamental rights of speech and association protected by the Constitutions is an irreparable harm. That infringement becomes all the more substantial when multiplied by the tens of thousands of affected municipal employees (assuming defendants' initial argument that thousands of local governments are affected is correct). Granting a stay would allow that substantial harm to that fundamental public interest to continue.

The Budget Repair Bill has been the subject of copious legal and political controversy since its passage in March 2011. In July the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to reopen a case challenging the Budget Repair Bill because of a justice's refusal to recuse himself [JURIST report]. The Supreme Court's upholding of the Budget Repair Bill overruled a Dane County Circuit Court's decision [JURIST report] last year that struck down the law for violations of the open meetings rule.

Iranian authorities know full well that executing people for drugs offences is contrary to international human rights standards. Executing Saeed Sedeghi and possibly others in a few hours' time, in Tehran's Evin Prison, will do nothing to solve Iran's ever-growing drugs problem but will inflict needless suffering on Iranian families.

Iran's human rights record has come under international scrutiny recently. In October a UN official on released a report indicating that the government of Iran is torturing human rights activists [JURIST report] and threatening the activists' families with rape or death. In a report to the UN General Assembly UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed declared that human rights activists in Iran are being subjected to beatings, mock hangings, sleep deprivation and threats that their family members will be killed or raped. Also in October the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) urged Iran [JURIST report] to halt all executions because the government has failed to provide the accused with fair trials and due process of law. In June three UN Special Rapporteurs condemned [JURIST report] Iran for executing four members of the Ahwazi Arab minority without providing them fair trials.

Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] considers both prisoners of conscience as long as they are detained and has called for their convictions to be overturned [press release]. The pair plan to appeal to the Bahrain Court of Cassation.

Bahrain has faced international criticism for its crackdown against dissidents since anti-government protests began last year. Last week Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Bahrain's court of appeals to overturn [press release] the conviction of human right advocate Nabeel Rajab [JURIST news archive]. HRW contends that there is no evidence of Rajab participating in violence and that his conviction is a violation of his right to peaceful assembly. Earlier this month the Bahrain Court of Cassation upheld jail sentences [JURIST report] for nine medics convicted for their involvement in Bahrain's pro-democracy uprisingAccording to BNA, the medics were working at Salmaniya Medical Complex [official website], and, during the time of the uprising, "took over the complex, detained and imprisoned kidnapped persons, and transformed the hospital to a place of illegal gathering and strikes, in violation of laws." Last month government officials pledged to fulfill [JURIST report] the 158 recommendations included in the UN Universal Periodic Review [materials] regarding human rights abuses against political opposition. HRW called on Bahrain to follow through with their promises, but raised doubts as to whether the government is fully committed to reform.

As CIA and [Government Communications Headquarters] employees are civilians and not "combatants" they are not entitled to the benefit of immunity from ordinary criminal law ... GCHQ employees who assist CIA employees to direct armed attacks in Pakistan are in principle liable under domestic criminal law as secondary parties to murder and that any policy which involves passing locational intelligence to the CIA for use in drone strikes in Pakistan is unlawful. Evidence suggests that drone strikes in Pakistan are being carried out in violation of international humanitarian law, because the individuals who are being targeted are not directly participating in hostilities and/or because the force used is neither necessary nor proportionate. This suggests that there is also a significant risk that GCHQ officers may be guilty of conduct ancillary to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes, both of which are statutory offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

Khan filed a similar suit [Business Insider report] last month in the High Court of the Peshawar [official website] seeking criminal action against perpetrators of the drone strike that killed his father. Unmanned drone strikes have been a contentious legal issue. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] in September on whether to grant a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [5 USC § 552] request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] to obtain information from the CIA [official website] on its use of unmanned Predator drones. In August UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Ben Emmerson said that the US government must allow an independent investigation [JURIST report] of the legality of its drone strike policy. In July the Pakistan Ambassador to the US called on the CIA to stop using drone strikes [JURIST report].