Since its approval [JURIST report] in 2006, the data retention law has been criticized by numerous countries. In May the European Commission [official website] referred [JURIST report] Germany to the ECJ for not complying with the Directive. In March 2011 the Czech Republic's Constitutional Court [official website, in Czech] overturned [JURIST report] parts of the law reasoning that it is unconstitutional. In February 2009, the ECJ dismissed [JURIST report] a challenge to the data retention law. The court only addressed the issue of whether the law was valid in light of the ECT's trade provision and found that the law was valid because it standardized costs associated with retaining the data across the EU. Data retention policy has received attention in the US as well. In March US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] signed new guidelines [JURIST report] which permit the US government to gather data on American citizens to search for "terrorism information" which it can keep permanently. Commentators have warned [JURIST op-ed] that these types of data retention policies can lead to the creation of "mass dossiers" that have significant privacy impacts.

The principle that the courts will not sit in judgment on the sovereign acts of a foreign state includes a prohibition against adjudication upon the "legality, validity or acceptability of such acts, either under domestic law or international law." The rationale for this principle, is, in part, founded upon the proposition that the attitude and approach of one country to the acts and conduct of another is a matter of high policy, crucially connected to the conduct of the relations between the two sovereign powers. To examine and sit in judgment on the conduct of another state would imperil relations between the states.

Unmanned drone strikes have been a contentious legal issue, especially their use in Pakistan. In November, JURIST guest columnist Samar Warsi [professional profile] argued [JURIST comment] that drone attacks were counterproductive and hurt American attempts at foreign policy improvement. 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]. Earlier that month US lawmakers expressed concern over the use of drones within the US [JURIST report] at a hearing in the US House Committee on Homeland Security [official website]. Also in July the Center for Constitutional Rights [advocacy website] and the ACLU filed a suit [JURIST report] challenging the US government's targeted killing of three US citizens in drone strikes. Commentators have suggested that the CIA's claim that there have been zero civilian casualties due to drone strikes needs to be seriously examined [JURIST op-ed].

According to RAPSI, a legal information agency which operates in coordination with Russian courts, the bill was adopted in retaliation [RAPSI report] for the US adoption [JURIST report] of the Magnitsky Act [text], which imposes US travel and financial restrictions on human rights abusers in Russia. The bill was so named for Sergei Magnitsky [BBC report], a Russian whistle-blower who arrested on charges of tax fraud, who later died in prison [JURIST report]. The legislation also comes just months after Russia and the US entered into an agreement [JURIST report] tightening restrictions on international adoptions.

the court finds that the segregation policy is based on outdated and unsupported assumptions about HIV and the prison system's ability to deal with HIV-positive prisoners. The policy is also infected, and the reasons the ADOC has proffered for its continued existence undermined, by an intentional bias against HIV-positive people, as reflected in a bias from those in charge ... and in a system-wide tolerance for a culture of bias, rooted in large measure in ignorance about HIV, from among not only prisoners but employees in general. ... Therefore, any remedy the defendants might propose to the court must be based not only on a willingness to revisit assumptions and to look to all reasonably available and untapped resources; and must not only be uninfected by bias against those with HIV, but it must also address the lack of education and ignorance among both prisoners and prison employees about HIV. "We live in Alabama" is not an excuse.

In 2010 the ACLU and Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy websites] called on ADOC to end prison segregation based on HIV status [JURIST report]. The ACLU and HRW jointly produced a report [text, PDF], which concluded that the prisoners face fundamental discrimination which amounts to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners," including "involuntary disclosure of HIV status to family, staff and other prisoners; loss of liberty by assignment to higher security prisons; denial of work, program and re-entry opportunities; and policies that promote, rather than combat, fear, prejudice and even violence against persons living with HIV." ADOC responded [report, PDF] by saying that the policy is necessary for the safety and protection of the inmates and guards and has resulted in a "near zero" rate of new HIV infections within the Alabama prison system since 2005.

This case is not about whether the Wisconsin or United States Constitutions require, on equal protection or other grounds, that same-sex couples have the right to a legally recognized relationship that is identical or substantially similar to marriage. To the contrary, for the domestic partnership law to pass muster here, the "legal status" created by that law may not be "substantially similar" to the "legal status" of marriage. Because the legal and evidentiary arguments of the parties persuade us that the two are not "substantially similar," we affirm the circuit court's decision holding that the domestic partnership law does not violate the marriage amendment.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] remains controversial throughout the US, with states taking various approaches. Earlier this week the Montana Supreme Court [official website] affirmed [JURIST report] a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit seeking legal status for same-sex relationships. Like Wisconsin, Montana also has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this month Washington Governor Christine Gregoire certified the results of Referendum 74 [JURIST report] which legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Washington had previously recognized domestic partnerships [JURIST report]. Also in December the US Supreme Court [official website] agreed to rule [JURIST report] on two cases dealing with same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry [docket] the court will consider the validity of Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In United States v. Windsor [docket] the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive].

The judge should consider the importance of the religious practice to the witness, the degree of state interference with that practice, and the actual situation in the courtroom. ... The judge should also consider broader societal harms, such as discouraging niqab-wearing women from reporting offences and participating in the justice system, ... [and] the salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab. ... When assessing potential harm to the accused's fair trial interest, the judge should consider whether the witness's evidence is peripheral or central to the case, the extent to which effective cross-examination and credibility assessment of the witness are central to the case, and the nature of the proceedings. Where the liberty of the accused is at stake, the witness's evidence central and her credibility vital, the possibility of a wrongful conviction must weigh heavily in the balance.

The wearing of traditional religious clothing in court rooms and other public places has been highly contested in the United States [JURIST report] and around the world. In September the Swiss Parliament [official website, in french] voted against [JURIST report] a bill which would ban burqas [JURIST news archive] and other face coverings in public places. In January the Netherlands announced that a ban on burqas would go forward [JURIST report] later this year. Proponents of the Netherlands ban said the purpose was to stop people from being able to commit crimes and remain undetected by concealing their identities and covering their faces. Belgium officially banned [JURIST report] burqas in July 2011. France's ban on burqas took effect [JURIST report] in April 2011. Some commentators have suggested that the rationales behind the European burqa bans are weak [JURIST op-ed] and that the true purpose of the bills is societal discomfort.

The unrelenting violence in Syria has resulted in thousands of deaths, untold thousands of wounded, detained and disappeared, and physical destruction on a massive scale. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes and those that remain struggle to secure basic necessities. World heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed, as have entire neighbourhoods. Civilians have borne the brunt of escalating armed confrontations as the front lines between Government forces and the armed opposition have moved deeper into urban areas. The patterns of international human rights and humanitarian law violations that were noted in previous reports have continued unabated, alongside a proliferation of both anti- and pro-Government armed entities.

The Syrian government has been in conflict with the opposition since 2011, and the international community has become increasingly concerned about the violence. Last week US President Barack Obama recognized the leading Syrian opposition coalition as the legitimate representative of the country's people. A UN official said last month that a video posted on the Internet of Syrian rebels executing government soldiers who had surrendered may be evidence of war crimes [JURIST report]. In October UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] called on the international community to work to bring an end to the Syrian conflict [JURIST report]. Her statement came after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] reported earlier that month that the Syrian government was using cluster bombs [JURIST report] against opposition forces. In September UN investigators reported [JURIST report] that the number and frequency of human rights violations committed by both sides of the conflict were increasing rapidly.

Peter Madoff was a gatekeeper, who was supposed to guard against fraud, but instead enabled it—facilitating his brother Bernie's breathtaking scheme by falsifying compliance records and lying to both regulators and clients of BLMIS. The decade he will spend in prison and the disgorgement of his assets are a just result. Our efforts to hold to account anyone and everyone who played a role in this unprecedented Ponzi scheme continue.

Last month Irwin Lipkin, a former controller of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to falsifying records. Lipkin faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, as well as criminal fines up to twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offenses. In June a New York judge approved [JURIST report] a $410 million settlement agreement between hedge fund manager Ezra Merkin and the state of New York in a lawsuit connected with the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. The case against Merkin was filed in 2009, accusing him of directing funds into Madoff's Ponzi scheme and charging him with violations of the Martin Act, General Business Law § 352 and Executive Law § 63(12). In March, Madoff trustee Irving Picard and the owners of the New York Mets reached [JURIST report] a $162 million settlement for victims of the Ponzi scheme to avoid a trial.