The violence that followed the 2010 election claimed approximately 3,000 lives. Last week the ICC denied [JURIST report] Gbagbo's request to leave the Netherlands for medical recovery while he awaits trial. In August, the ICC dismissed a jurisdiction challenge [JURIST report] by Gbagbo, ruling that the court has the authority to hear the case. Also that month ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I again postponed Gbagbo's confirmation of charges hearing [JURIST report] in order to determine if the former president remains fit to stand trial. Three medical evaluations of Gbagbo fitness were submitted on July 19, around three weeks after the Chamber appointed three medical experts following a defense request. The court first postponed Gbagbo's confirmation of charges hearing in June, after his lawyers asked the court more time to prepare [JURIST reports], complaining that they did not have enough resources to build their case in the amount of time given. Gbagbo's original hearing date was set [JURIST report] in December during his pre-trial hearing in ICC Pre-Trial Chamber III.

Last year the ECHR ruled [JURIST report] that a Polish woman who had been denied genetic testing and an abortion was subjected to "inhuman treatment." The court found violations of Article 3 and Article 8. In 2010 the ECHR ruled [JURIST report] that Ireland failed to provide "effective and accessible procedures" to allow a Lithuanian women to assert her constitutional right to a lawful abortion. In 2007 Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski declared that Poland planned to appeal a ruling [JURIST reports] by the ECHR that found Poland in violation of Article 8 for prohibiting a pregnant woman who had a serious risk of vision loss if she carried the pregnancy to term from obtaining an abortion. The ECHR later rejected this appeal [JURIST report], reinforcing that the Polish government did not provide any procedural framework to resolve a dispute concerning whether a medical exception should be granted, or to facilitate "effective mechanisms capable of determining whether the conditions for obtaining a lawful abortion had been met." JURIST guest columnist Gerolf Hagens has analyzed [JURIST comment] the ECHR's rulings on abortion.

Protection of free expression remains a key concern for international human rights advocates. In July the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) [advocacy website] stated that press freedom in the Maldives [JURIST report] has been deteriorating since the resignation of former president Mohamed Nasheed. The group noted that journalists in the Maldives have been subject to police brutality and attacks by political extremists. During the same month HRW urged the government of Sri Lanka to end arrests and office raids of journalists [JURIST report] who publish content critical of the government. In June two reports were presented to the UN Human Rights Council [official website] urging greater protection for the right to life of journalists [JURIST report] and media freedom. The CPJ in February released its annual Attacks on the Press report [JURIST report], expressing concern about increased censorship of journalists worldwide in 2011. The CPJ criticized the growing trend of government censorship, especially Internet censorship. In May of last year, journalism rights group Reporters without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] its annual list of predators of press freedom, which included the heads of state of several countries in the Middle East and North Africa. In April 2011, the US Department of State (DOS) [official website] released its 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [JURIST report], listing many of the same offenders of free press as the RSF report.

Right to freedom of speech is an international concern. In August Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] alleged [JURIST report] that the government of Angola [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] is responsible for undermining freedom of speech protections for its citizens. In its 13-page report [text, PDF], HRW summarized recent abuses directed at activists, journalists and protesters who expressed their criticism against the government. Journalists are frequently arrested, detained and questioned for covering protests while demonstrators are denied their exercise of peaceful assembly by the country's security forces. In July HRW deemed a draft Iraqi cybercrime law [JURIST report] to be in violation of the international standards protecting due process, freedom of speech and freedom of association. The proposed law regulates the use of information networks, computers, and other electronic devices and systems. It would allow authorities to impose criminal sanctions on individuals for publishing and sharing information that is considered a threat to governmental, social or religious interests. A month earlier the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression [official profile] concluded [JURIST report] that people in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are severely limited in free expression, both by the official governing bodies, and de facto authorities like Hamas.

The issues regarding personhood initiatives and their possible ramifications [JURIST op-eds] have long been a controversial reproductive rights issue [JURIST backgrounder]. The initiative to redefine "personhood" under the Oklahoma Constitution was originally challenged [JURIST report] in March. If the had amendment ever passed, it would have effectively outlawed all abortions, many forms of birth control, and various treatments for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. In February the Virginia House of Delegates passed a similar "personhood" bill [JURIST report] that defines "life" at the beginning of conception. Last fall, a similar lawsuit challenging the Mississippi personhood ballot initiative was dismissed and eventually rejected [JURIST reports]. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Colorado allowed [JURIST report] an anti-abortion group's personhood ballot initiative that similarly defined a fertilized egg as a "person."

Bahrain has faced international criticism for its crackdown against dissidents since anti-government protests began last year. Last week, a Bahrain appeals court upheld [JURIST report] verdicts against two teachers for organizing a teachers' strike early last year to support anti-government protests. At their first hearing in front of a military tribunal, the pair were convicted of using their positions as vice-president and president of the Bahrain Teachers' Association (BTA) to attempt to overthrow the Bahraini government through a teachers' strike that halted the educational process and "incited hatred" against the regime. Last week Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Bahrain's court of appeals to overturn [JURIST report] the conviction of human right advocate Nabeel Rajab [JURIST news archive].

In April the Rwandan court ruled that the case against Ingabire would continue [JURIST report] despite her announcement that she refused to attend further proceedings. The court's ruling paved the way for the prosecution to begin its case in Ingabire's absence. In May 2010,Rwandan authorities arrested [JURIST report] US lawyer and JURIST Forum [website] contributor Peter Erlinder [professional profile; JURIST news archive] on charges of genocide denial while he was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of Ingabire. Erlinder returned to the US [JURIST report] in June 2010 after spending 21 days in a Rwandan prison.

In Trevino v. Thaler [docket; questions presented, PDF] the court will again consider a defense counsel not putting forward mitigating factors in defense of his/her client. The court has limited the grant to question one, and will analyze under last term's decision in Martinez v. Ryan [JURIST report]. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found [opinion] that Carlos Trevino was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

In PPL Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will look at how to analyze foreign taxes. PPL Corporation is attempting to qualify for a foreign tax credit for paying a "windfall tax" in the United Kingdom, where they own a 25 percent stake in a utilities company. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found [opinion] the "windfall tax" did not apply under 26 USC § 901(b) of the Tax Code, because it is "income, war profits, [or] excess profits." PPL Corporation is now asking the Supreme Court to review how foreign taxes are considered by US courts: "[should] courts ... employ a formalistic approach that looks solely at the form of the foreign tax statute and ignores how the tax actually operates, or should employ a substance-based approach that considers factors such as the practical operation and intended effect of the foreign tax."

Finally, in McQuiggin v. Perkins [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will consider if "actual innocence" is an exception to not pursuing a timely habeas claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found [opinion] that actual innocence does toll statute of limitations: "Given the Supreme Court's rich jurisprudence protecting the rights of the wrongfully incarcerated, petitioners who seek equitable tolling based on actual innocence should not be treated in the same way as those seeking equitable tolling because of ineffective assistance of counsel, confusion of filing requirements, or other important, but less compelling reasons."

[Respondents] have standing here because there is a substantial risk that their communications will be acquired under the act and because this substantial risk has effectively compelled them to take immediate measures to protect information that is sensitive or privileged. [Respondents] are lawyers, journalists and human rights researchers who routinely engage in communications that the act is designed to allow the Government to acquire. [Respondents] communicate, for example, foreign intelligence information, the kind of information that the statute expressly authorizes the Government to collect, to retain and disseminate.

The court also heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [transcript, PDF; JURIST Copyright Act [text], a copyrighted work obtained legally outside the US may be sold in the US without the copyright owner's permission. Petitioner and Thai national Supap Kirtsaeng resold foreign-manufactured textbooks in the US that were published originally and only authorized for sale in other countries. His attorney argued that as they understand the law, "lawfully made under this title means made wherever, in a way that satisfies US copyright standards," so if a copyright owner sells a product somewhere, he/she loses distribution rights over it in any other country. The respondents argued that under the first sale doctrine, also quoting the "lawfully made under this title" portion of the law, there is a clear presumption that US Copyright law controls, and that sellers must not just satisfy it: "Now, when we just say lawfully made, you know, we need something to measure, well, how do we know whether it's lawfully made? Well, you look to the rules in the copyright law. So if you just—if you focus more on the lawfully word, lawfully made, and then under this title doesn't mean made in the United States, it means lawfully made under the rules of this title." JURIST Guest Columnists Beth Heifetz and David Cooper of Jones Day analyzed the case [JURIST comment] and suggested that copyright protections for the resale of goods should only apply to copyrighted goods first manufactured and sold outside the US.