Burqas and other symbols of Islam have been a controversial subject in Europe. In July 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. Swiss voters approved a proposal to ban the construction of minarets [JURIST report] in November 2009, and the vote was subsequently upheld [JURIST report] in the European Court of Human Rights [official website] in July 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 accused leader of the terrorist group, Zakaria Amara, pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in 2009 to charges of planning to bomb three targets in Ontario. The same month Saad Gaya plead guilty while another member of the group, Ali Mohamed Dirie, was sentenced to seven years in prison [JURIST report]. In September 2009, the first of the group to plead guilty, Saad Khalid, was sentenced to 14 years in prison [JURIST report], though the Canadian government sought to alter that sentence for time already served. The first of the suspects to be convicted under Canada's post-9/11 terrorism law was sentenced and released [JURIST reports] in May, with the court citing time served. The Toronto 18 were arrested [JURIST report] in 2006.

Since its expiration in 2011, the reauthorization of the VAWA has been controversial. Last week the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women Rashida Manjoo [official profile] urged [UN press release; JURIST report] the US Congress to renew the VAWA. In 2011 Manjoo issued a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] which found a continued prevalence of violence against women and discriminatory treatment of women in the US, with a heightened impact on poor, minority and immigrant women. Last year the Republican-led House and the Democratic-controlled Senate both passed versions of the VAWA reauthorization but were unable to reach a compromise [AP report] over the prosecutorial power of tribal courts.

Since his arrest in 2010, Manning's case has been controversial. In January Lind ruled that prosecutors must prove that Manning knew he was aiding the enemy and that the treatment he received while in military custody was illegal and excessive [JURIST reports]. In November Lind accepted [JURIST report] a partial guilty plea to several of the minor charges against Manning. In August JURIST guest columnist Philip Cave argued [JURIST comment] that the lack of transparency in Manning's case undermines the validity of the eventual verdict. In June Lind ordered [JURIST report] the prosecution to submit to her a number of files that were allegedly withheld from the defense during discovery. Earlier that month Lind denied a motion [JURIST report] to dismiss 8 of the 22 charges against Manning after his defense argued that they were unconstitutionally vague. In May UN Special Rapporteur on torture accused [JURIST report] the US government of cruel and inhuman treatment.

Perisic was found guilty of 12 out of 13 charges, including aiding and abetting murders occurring during the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive], inhumane acts, attacks on civilians, unjust persecutions and having knowingly supplied "extensive logistical assistance" to the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and the Army of Serbian Krajina (SVK) that would be used to torture and kill hundreds of Muslim civilians. He was also found guilty on the basis of command responsibility for the inhumane acts of his officers and subsequently failing to punish them. In March 2011 UN prosecutors demanded that Perisic receive a life sentence [JURIST report] for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s. Perisic's trial began [JURIST report] in October 2008, and closing arguments concluded at the end of March 2011. ICTY Prosecutor Mark Harmon said Perisic was one of the "principal collaborators" of late Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic [JURIST news archive], claiming in his opening statement that Perisic "created an environment of impunity, wherein his subordinates were encouraged and did persist to commit crimes, knowing there would be no consequences." Perisic turned himself in to the UN in 2005, surrendering to officials [JURIST report] from the ICTY.

"[I]t would impose a ban on a woman's right to choose an elective, nontherapeutic (sic) abortion before viability, House Bill 1037, if it became law, would squarely contradict Supreme Court precedent. When I was sworn in as Governor I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend both the Arkansas Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously"

Immediately after overriding the governor's veto, the Arkansas Senate passed the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act [SB 134, PDF] to restrict abortions after 12 weeks, which Beebe has previously said he would veto. The Senate's override makes Arkansas the eighth US state to ban or restrict abortions after 20 weeks. Similar laws restricting reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder] are currently facing legal challenges in Arizona and Georgia [JURIST reports].

The issue of same-sex marriage is an ongoing controversy in the US. Earlier this week businesses, cities, and other organizations filed two amicus curiae briefs [JURIST report] with the Supreme Court also in support of same-sex marriage, urging the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text, PDF] in US v. Windsor [docket] in addition to Proposition 8. Also this week, attorneys for Edith Windsor [NYT profile], the plaintiff, filed a brief [JURIST report] with the court arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Last week, three other briefs were filed [JURIST report], including one written by the US Office of the Solicitor General [official website], which argued that DOMA is unconstitutional, and one written by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which defended the law's constitutionality. Last month, the Supreme Court received briefs in both cases defending the constitutionality [JURIST report] of both Proposition 8 and Section 3 of DOMA. The court granted certiorari in both cases [JURIST report] in December.

Earlier this month Darusman similarly urged [JURIST report] the UNHRC and the UN General Assembly [official website] to investigate human rights violations in North Korea. In November, he expressed concern [JURIST report] over the country's lack of development in human rights, and called on its new leader, Kim Jong-un [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], to remedy the matter. Last month UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] condemned North Korea's human rights record [JURIST report] and urged the international community to make efforts to improve the situation. Pillay's plea came only days after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] called on the UN [JURIST report] to examine human rights abuses, particularly in light of the drop in individuals escaping into China and reports by successful escapees of increasing crackdown on escape attempts.

Earlier this month the Bangladesh parliament [official website] approved amendments to the country's war crimes laws to allow prosecutors to appeal sentences given to defendants convicted of war crimes. These amendments are a response to protests [JURIST report] that ensued after Abdul Quader Mollah, another JI leader, was given a life sentence [JURIST report] for war crimes committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War (BLW). The protesters believed a life sentence was too lenient and that Mollah, who was convicted of charges including murder, rape and torture, should have been given the death penalty. The law passed by parliament will be effective retroactively [AP report] to July 2009, allowing prosecutors to appeal Mollah's sentence.

This was the latest ruling in the global dispute between the two companies. In August of last year, the same court dismissed Apple's claim [JURIST report] against Samsung holding that latter did not violate Apple's patents of synchronizing music and video data. An appeal followed [JURIST report] two months later. Last month a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled that Samsung did not willfully infringe [JURIST report] Apple's patents. The judge's ruling partially abrogates the jury verdict [JURIST report] finding that Samsung willfully infringed Apple's asserted patents. However, the judge declined to overturn the jury's findings on validity and infringement and also refused to grant Samsung a new trial on the grounds that the trial was allegedly manifestly unfair. In December Apple agreed to withdraw claims [JURIST report] against a Samsung product that Samsung asserts has never been sold in the US in the second of the two patent infringement cases taking place in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. In October a Dutch court ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple software patent. During same month, a UK court ruled similarly in case regarding Apple's design patent [JURIST report].

Iran drew additional ire from the US in January when an Iranian court sentenced an American-Iranian pastor to eight years in prison [JURIST report] for threatening national security through his leadership in Christian house churches. Earlier that month Iranian lawyer and prominent human rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh [JURIST news archive] was temporarily released after spending over two years in prison [JURIST report] in Tehran for her September 2010 conviction for propaganda and harming national security. Iranian authorities pursued Sotoudeh because she represented political activists and sought to highlight the execution of juveniles in the country. Last month Argentina sentenced former Interior Minister Jaime Smart to life in prison for crimes against humanity [JURIST report] during the nation's 1976-1983 "Dirty War" [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In July Argentina's Poder Judicial de la Nacion sentenced two former Argentine dictators [JURIST report] to a total of 65 years in prison for their involvement in the systematic kidnapping of babies from leftist activists detained and killed during the "Dirty War."

the benefits of the suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression. Section 14(1)(b) of the Code represents a choice by the legislature to discourage hate speech and its harmful effects on both the vulnerable group and on society as a whole, in a manner that is conciliatory and remedial. In cases such as the present, the process under the legislation can provide guidance to individuals ... so that they can continue expressing their views in a way that avoids falling within the narrow scope of expression captured by the statutory prohibition. The protection of vulnerable groups from the harmful effects emanating from hate speech is of such importance as to justify the minimal infringement of expression that results from the restriction of materials of this kind.

Maintaining an appropriate balance between limiting hate speech and respecting freedom of expression remains controversial. Following the release of an anti-Islam film in September, which incited riots throughout the middle east [BBC report], several countries have been scrutinizing exactly how far the freedom of speech should go. In February, JURIST Guest Columnist Felix Treguer, Policy and Legal Analyst at La Quadrature du Net, discussed [JURIST comment] the "judicial guerilla war" in France being waged on "hateful" Internet content, unduly stifling free speech. In November an independent UN expert urged countries to combat hate speech on the Internet [JURIST report], while simultaneously protecting freedom of speech.

Zimbabwe has previously been criticized for its failure to ensure compliance with international human rights standards. Last month Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] said that the unity government, established in 2009 after the 2008 elections resulted in violence, failed to take the necessary steps [JURIST report] to ensure "credible, free and fair elections." In November the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OBS) [FIDH backgrounder] reported that human rights defenders in Zimbabwe continue to be harassed [JURIST report]. Last March various human rights groups urged South African courts to prosecute Zimbabwe for violations including torture and forced labor [JURIST reports] of civilian workers in illegal mining camps. In June 2009 Amnesty International [advocacy website] reported that Zimbabwe was still experiencing serious human rights violations [JURIST report], such as the arrest and detention of human rights activists, and needed to confront issues that led to such problems.

There are good reasons why the fraud discovery rule has not been extended to Government enforcement actions for civil penalties. The discovery rule exists in part to preserve the claims of victims who do not know they are injured and who reasonably do not inquire as to any injury. Usually when a private party is injured, he is immediately aware of that injury and put on notice that his time to sue is running. But when the injury is self-concealing, private parties may be unaware that they have been harmed. Most of us do not live in a state of constant investigation; absent any reason to think we have been injured, we do not typically spend our days looking for evidence that we were lied to or defrauded. And the law does not require that we do so. Instead, courts have developed the discovery rule, providing that the statute of limitations in fraud cases should typically begin to run only when the injury is or reasonably could have been discovered. The same conclusion does not follow for the Government in the context of enforcement actions for civil penalties.The SEC, for example, is not like an individual victim who relies on apparent injury to learn of a wrong. Rather, a central "mission" of the Commission is to "investigat[e] potential violations of the federal securities laws." Unlike the private party who has no reason to suspect fraud, the SEC's very purpose is to root it out, and it has many legal tools at hand to aid in that pursuit. It can demand that securities brokers and dealers submit detailed trading information. It can require investment advisers to turn over their comprehensive books and records at any time. And even without filing suit, it can subpoena any documents and witnesses it deems relevant or material to an investigation.

Gabelli v. Securities Exchange Commission [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] was argued in January after being granted [JURIST report] in September. Gabelli Funds, LLC, is an investment adviser to a mutual fund formerly known as Gabelli Global Growth Fund (GGGF). At one point it allegedly gave advice to its client, Headstart Advisers, Ltd., on how to engage in "market timing" [backgrounder] in exchange for Headstart's investment in a hedge fund. Although market timing is not technically illegal, it is discouraged due to impeding long-term investment strategies, and was the claim the SEC focused on in this case.