Virginia's new laws mark the second time in two years that the Commonwealth has altered voting regulations. In August McDonnell announced [JURIST report] that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] had approved Virginia's voter ID law involving voting procedures, finding that the law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [text]. Prior to the law, the Commonwealth required identification at the polls, but allowed voters to cast ballots without it if they signed an affidavit swearing their identity. That law eliminated the affidavit option while adding several other acceptable forms of identification, all of which have been removed by Tuesday's new legislation. There are now more than 30 US States [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 17 states that have passed laws requiring photo ID. The issue remains legally controversial, most notably in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota [JURIST reports].

Google has already faced sharp opposition to its new policies around the world. In October European regulators urged Google to clarify [JURIST report] its privacy policy. In August Google agreed [JURIST report] to pay a record fine of $22.5 million to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] after being charged with tracking users' search histories and targeting ads to those users in violation of a previous privacy settlement. In March EU's Justice Commissioner Vice-President Viviane Reding [official website] declared that Google's new policy violated EU privacy laws [JURIST report], and EU data authorities voiced concern about the sharing and combination of personal data across services and its compliance with European data protection legislation [text]. Google has also faced criticism for its policy in the US where the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] in late February dismissed a suit [JURIST report] filed by consumer privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [advocacy website] asking the FTC to block Google's then proposed changes. In addition, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) [official website] last February sent a letter [JURIST report] to Google signed by 36 state attorneys general expressing concerns about the company's new privacy policy. In January 2012 Google issued a letter in response to concerns raised by members of Congress [JURIST reports] regarding consumer privacy rights as impacted by the new policy.

Tunisia has faced political turmoil since former president Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] left office amid nationwide protests in 2011, often referred to as part of the Arab Spring. In October Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on Tunisian authorities [JURIST report] to investigate a series of attacks by religious extremists, and to bring those responsible to justice. In August the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice [official website] urged the Tunisian government to ensure that women's rights are protected [JURIST report] in line with the nation's international human rights obligations. In October 2011 Pillay emphasized the importance of adherence to the rule of law [JURIST report] as the country moves forward.

The controversy surrounding this case has been a major concern for the fledgling Somali government. Last month UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zainab Hawa Bangura [official profile] criticized the government's response [press release], saying the "approach taken by the Somali police does not serve the interest of justice; it only serves to criminalize victims and undermine freedom of expression for the press." A collection of human rights groups and free press advocates also issued a joint statement [JURIST report] calling for the release of Ibrahim and three others who were detained in connection with the woman's claims. The statement, issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists [advocacy websites], requested that the government release Ibrahim and the others, who were all involved in reporting on the woman's claims and the government's response.

As many as 140 million women and girls worldwide have undergone some form of FGM, which is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) [official website] as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons." Last November, a UN panel urged countries to ban [JURIST reports] female genital mutilation. Last February the UN reported [JURIST report] similar progress in ending female genital mutilation. In 2010 Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called on the government of Iraqi Kurdistan [JURIST report] to outlaw female genital mutilation and to develop a comprehensive legislative plan to reduce FGM in the region. In 2009 Uganda unanimously outlawed FGM [JURIST report] and imposed harsh penalties anyone who conducts the procedure to face imprisonment.

In the face of this trend, the time has come for the United States and its partner governments to own up to their responsibility for secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. If they do not seize this opportunity, chances are that the truth will emerge by other means to embarrass them. The taint of torture associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations will continue to cling to the United States and its partner governments as long as they fail to air the truth and hold their officials accountable. The impunity currently enjoyed by responsible parties also paves the way for future abuses in counterterrorism operations. There can be no doubt that in today's world, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for combating terrorism. But such cooperation must be effected in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law. ... Consistent with this principle, it is incumbent on the United States and its partner governments to repudiate secret detention and extraordinary rendition, secure accountability for human rights violations associated with these operations, and ensure that future counterterrorism operations do not violate human rights standards.

The issue of CIA extraordinary rendition has been a sensitive one, particularly in Europe. In December the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the government of Macedonia [official website] is responsible for the torture and degrading maltreatment of a man the ECHR found to be an innocent victim of CIA extraordinary rendition in 2003. In September the Italian Court of Cassation [official website, in Italian] upheld the convictions [JURIST report] of 23 former CIA officers for the 2003 kidnapping and rendition of Egyptian terror suspect Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr. In April UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Ben Emmerson [official profile] expressed regret over a US court decision denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [National Security Archive] requests by a member of the UK parliament and the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition [official website], made as part of an investigation into extrajudicial capture [JURIST report] by the US of foreign terrorism suspects for detention and interrogation. In March in a hearing before the European Parliament (EP) [official website], Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] asked EU member states to reconsider their involvement in the extraordinary rendition program [JURIST report], intending to create the foundation of an EP report that will divulge details of a five-year investigation into each nation's involvement in supporting CIA renditions.

Freedom of expression and media freedom—as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—is a core element of any functioning democracy. ... Legislation has to be brought in line with Council of Europe standards. Some progress has already been achieved. ... Freedom of expression can disturb the State or any sector of the population, especially when the country is facing threats of terrorism and instability at its borders. But even in these circumstances, freedom of expression is vital. It does not make countries weaker. On the contrary, it strengthens democracy and the rule of law. In fact, any successful struggle against terrorism must be based on democratic principles and rule of law.

Turkey continues to face controversy regarding media freedom and anti-terrorism. The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) [official website] criticized Turkey in November for prosecuting activists [JURIST report] under the country's vague counterterrorism law. In March 2011 a spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] urged Turkish officials to respect journalists' freedom of expression [JURIST report]. In November 2010 a Turkish Magistrate Court in Ankara reinstated [JURIST report] the nearly three-year ban on YouTube [media website; JURIST news archive] only days after the ban had been lifted. The court ordered access to YouTube blocked after video of former opposition leader Deniz Baykal in a bedroom with a female aide surfaced on the site. In September 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Turkey failed to protect the life of well-known Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Hrant Dink [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive] and failed to adequately investigate his murder and infringed on his right of freedom of expression. Dink, editor of the newspaper Agos [media website], was shot and killed [JURIST report] in Istanbul in January 2007. Prior to his death, Dink was tried and then put on retrial [JURIST report] for "insulting Turkishness" by writing about the killing of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] has been a controversial issue worldwide. Last month the US Supreme Court [official website] received briefs [JURIST report] in two separate cases defending the constitutionality of laws that define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. Also last month, the Rhode Island House of Representatives approved a bill [JURIST report] that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. In December JURIST guest columnist Paul Johnson opined that the effect of an ongoing human rights debate in the British Isles and the European Court of Human Rights may have a detrimental effect on the same-sex marriage debate [JURIST op-ed] in the UK. The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a non-profit corporation in Nevada which opposes same-sex marriage, petitioned the US Supreme Court [JURIST report] in December to grant certiorari to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires Nevada to change its definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons. In November the office of the Maryland Attorney General released an opinion [JURIST report] stating that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses, allowing Maryland to become the ninth US state to allow same sex marriage after Maine and Washington [JURIST reports] enacted similar measures in November.

This is the first civil lawsuit by the DOJ against a credit rating agency following the 2008 housing crisis and resulting economic collapse. However, other federal agencies have filed lawsuits and amended regulations in the wake of the collapse. In January the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) [official website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against JPMorgan Chase &Co.for the sale of $2.2 billion of faulty RMBSs to credit unions. In June 2011 JPMorgan settled [JURIST report] at $153.6 million for fraud charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] for misleading investors during the housing crises. In December 2008 the SEC approved rule amendments [JURIST report] that provided greater oversight and regulation of credit rating agencies.