Al-Hashemi is the highest ranking Sunni official with significant support from people in the region, as illustrated by the thousands who protested the charges against him [Al Arabiya report]. The ex-VP's first death sentence came after attacks carried out across Iraq killed at least 64 people. In December al-Hashemi stated that he is not going to return to Baghdad [JURIST report] to stand trial on charges of inciting violence in the country. The statement came a week after an arrest warrant was issued against him by Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki [official website, in Arabic].

The PPACA has faced numerous legal challenges since its inception in March 2010. Last month the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld the dismissal [JURIST report] of a challenge to the PPACA by Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder [official website] and six other citizens due to a lack of standing. In July the US District Court for the District of Nebraska [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by seven state attorneys general challenging the PPACA's health care mandates, particularly those that require all employer health care plans, including those of religious institutions, to cover contraception. In June the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that declared the PPACA constitutional centered on the "individual mandate" provision [text] of the act, which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a fee equal to either a percent of that individual's income or flat rate of $695. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that individual mandate is not a requirement that Americans buy insurance, since individuals who choose to pay the flat-rate fee are in full compliance with the law. The court's decision resolved four consolidated cases accepted by the court [JURIST report] in November 2011.

Sri Lanka is still struggling to establish rule of law in the wake of a 26-year civil war that ended in 2009. The Sri Lankan government has faced various allegations of human rights violations and war crimes by civil rights organizations and the UN since the end of its civil war. In July the government of Sri Lanka said that it may take up to five years to prosecute people accused of war crimes [JURIST report] during the civil war it fought with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [CFR backgrounder]. Earlier in July Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Sri Lanka to stop arresting journalists who criticized the government [JURIST report]. In November the Sri Lankan government was subjected to criticism for its failure to investigate [JURIST report] issues of torture for past human rights violations and to enforce laws against continued torture and ill-treatment by government officials against civilians. In April 2011 a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] committed during the country's war with the LTTE, warranting further investigation. In June 2010 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called for an international inquiry [JURIST report] into the conduct of the Sri Lankan government during its civil war.

It is increasingly difficult, in fact nearly impossible, for people who have suffered serious violations of their human rights to receive justice and accountability. Victims and survivors do not receive redress, and perpetrators are not brought to justice. The absence of justice removes an important deterrent to future perpetrators. This situation constitutes a serious breach of Sri Lanka's international obligation to protect and promote human rights.

The Sri Lankan government has faced various allegations of human rights violations and war crimes by civil rights organizations and the UN since the end of its civil war. Last month nearly 500 lawyers and judges in Sri Lanka held a protest [JURIST report] to express their dismay over the assault of an outspoken judge. In July the government of Sri Lanka said that it may take up to five years to prosecute people accused of war crimes [JURIST report] during the civil war it fought with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [CFR backgrounder]. Earlier in July Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Sri Lanka to stop arresting journalists who criticized the government [JURIST report]. In November the Sri Lankan government was subjected to criticism for its failure to investigate [JURIST report] issues of torture for past human rights violations and to enforce laws against continued torture and ill-treatment by government officials against civilians. In April 2011 a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] committed during the country's war with the LTTE, warranting further investigation. In June 2010 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called for an international inquiry [JURIST report] into the conduct of the Sri Lankan government during its civil war.

The Russian government has been cracking down on dissent in recent months. Members of Russian feminist rock band Pussy Riot [RASPI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] were given two-year prison sentences after they were convicted [JURIST report] in August of hooliganism in connection with "guerrilla performance" of a protest song in February at the altar of downtown Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. Since the beginning of the trial [JURIST report], the group's lawyers and human rights groups have said the charges were politically motivated by Putin to discredit his opposition. In July Putin signed a bill into the law that re-criminalizes slander and libel in the country after signing into law [JURIST reports] a bill that labels all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive foreign funding as "foreign agents" and requires them to register with the Justice Ministry just a week earlier.

The second case heard by the court Wednesday was Florida v. Harris [transcript, PDF; JURIST report]. In this case, the question was whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics dog constituted sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the purpose of searching a vehicle without a warrant. The Florida Supreme Court ruled [opinion] last year that in order for an alert by a drug dog to be sufficient to establish probable cause, a police officer must present ample evidence of the reliability and training of the dog, the officer's experience with the dog and the meaning of the training the dog has received. It ruled that the dog's reaction is sufficient if, but only if, together with all of this evidence, a court determines a police officer could reasonably believe the dog's reaction established probable cause. Florida's lawyer argued that, while a defendant should be able to raise questions about the reliability of a particular dog, the courts should not impose a prohibition on reliance upon a dog's alert as probable cause unless the police officer can provide ample evidence of the dog's reliability. The justices appeared more accepting of Florida's argument in this case, and showed more skepticism toward the argument of Harris' lawyer that the police officer should be required to prove the dog is sufficiently reliable in order to rely on its reactions as probable cause. The court is expected to rule on both of these cases by next summer. JURIST Guest Columnists Anand Agneshwar and Anna Thompson of Arnold & Porter LLP have analyzed the possible implications of the Supreme Court's decision [JURIST comment] in Florida v. Harris.