Sotoudeh has worked on several high-profile cases. She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested for his role in the post-election protests on charges of mohareb, which means being enemies of God. Rahmanipour was executed [JURIST report] in January. Sotoudeh also represented Isa Saharkhiz [Iran Press profile], a well-known press activist who was sentenced [JURIST report] to four years in prison in 2006 for publishing articles against the constitution and offending the state media. Iran continues to be scrutinized internationally for human rights violations. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] criticized [JURIST report] the state of human rights in Iran while presenting her annual report. Pillay condemned Iran for the "arbitrary arrest" of, and "harsh sentences, including capital punishment" given to, individuals involved in protests following the presidential elections.

The Chinese government and judiciary continue to stress the need to eradicate corruption. In July, the Chinese government instituted [JURIST report] regulations requiring officials to disclose details about their personal finances and legal statuses of their family members. Also in July, a top judicial official was executed [JURIST report] after a corruption probe revealed he had taken $2 million in bribes and protected organized crime gangs. In March, the Hebei Province People's High Court upheld a life sentence for the former vice president of China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) [official website, in Chinese], Huang Songyou, who had been convicted [JURIST reports] of bribery and embezzlement. Earlier that month, SPC president Wang Shengjun called for increased efforts to fight corruption [JURIST report] in the country's court system. In January, the SPC announced new anti-corruption rules [JURIST report] in an effort to increase public confidence in the rule of law.

Ibrahim was charged with the offenses related to the MV/CEC Future last month, the same day he pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] to charges relating to his role in the April 2010 attack on the USS Ashland. Earlier last month, a judge for that court dismissed piracy charges [JURIST report] against Ibrahim and five other Somali men, determining that the men did not satisfy the definition of piracy under the law of nations because they fired on the ship and did not board or take control of the vessel. Several other suspected Somali pirates have faced charges in federal court this year. A Somali man charged with piracy pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in May to charges related to an April 2009 attack on the US container ship Maersk Alabama. Piracy remains an issue of international concern, as few countries have been willing to prosecute suspected pirates. The few that have attempted to do so include Kenya, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports]. According to a report issued earlier this year, 2009 marked the worst year for maritime piracy [JURIST report] with 406 reported incidents.

Shahzad pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to 10 counts of terrorism and weapons charges [indictment, PDF] in June, telling the US court that he was a Muslim soldier [Al Jazeera report] and that his actions were an act of war. Earlier this month, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] declared TTP a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) [press release, PDF] as the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced it was bringing charges [JURIST report] against Mehsud in connection to a December 2009 attack on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] outpost Camp Chapman in Afghanistan. The TTP has been implicated in or claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including multiple assaults on NATO supply lines in the Pakistan's tribal region, a 2009 attack on a police station in the Bannu province and the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [JURIST report]. Despite rumors of his death [NYT report], the DOJ considers Mehsud a fugitive at large.

[T]here are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between [liberty, justice, transparency, accountability and national secuirty]. On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court's admonition that 'even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake.' ... Here, further litigation presents an unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets no matter what legal or factual theories Jeppesen would choose to advance during a defense. Whether or not Jeppesen provided logistical support in connection with the extraordinary rendition and interrogation programs, there is precious little Jeppesen could say about its relevant conduct and knowledge without revealing information about how the United States does or does not conduct covert operations. ... We ... acknowledge that this case presents a painful conflict between human rights and national security.

The state secrets privilege, which allows the exclusion of evidence based on a government affidavit that such evidence may endanger national security, has been highly criticized by rights groups and others. Julian Sanchez [Cato profile] of the Cato Institute [advocacy website] argued [JURIST comment] last October that Congress should implement state secrets reforms, rather than relying on the DOJ to increase oversight. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced [JURIST report] a number of new state secrets policies seeking to increase government accountability and oversight. Also last year, OpenTheGovernment.org [advocacy website] released a report [text, PDF] examining the privilege and other transparency issues, concluding that the current administration has improved transparency [JURIST report], but more should be done.

The judgments come at a time when the multi-billion euro industry is attempting to break the monopoly held by domestic "game of chance" agencies in many EU member states. In July, the ECJ upheld a Swedish law [JURIST report] that prohibits the promotion of Internet gambling by private operators in other EU member states for profit. The court concluded that Sweden's ban on Internet gambling was in line with EU laws, but that the nation's lottery laws were not allowed to penalize foreign gambling agencies differently from domestic agencies. In June, the ECJ issued two judgments [JURIST report] against UK betting companies Ladbrokes International and Betfair [judgments], upholding Dutch restrictions on Internet gambling. The ECJ ruled in both cases that national regulations on games of chance are compatible with EU law when they are enacted to mitigate addiction and combat fraud.

Critics of the president have called the amendment an abuse of power [AP report] and an attempt to "create a family dynasty." Rajapaksa is a popular figure within Sri Lanka, primarily for his efforts in defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive]. That conflict has raised numerous questions about the government's actions during military operations, including the treatment of prisoners and civilians. Last month, the Sri Lankan defense minister defended the government's actions during the conflict by taking every effort to avoid civilian casualties [JURIST report] and providing humanitarian relief. In July, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the Sri Lankan government to improve conditions around UN offices in Colombo after a UN announcement of an international panel to investigate human rights abuses during the war resulted in days of pro-government protests [JURIST reports] near UN offices.

In June 2009, Aza Gazgireyeva, deputy head of the Supreme Court in Russia's Ingushetia province [official website, in Russian; BBC backgrounder] was shot dead [JURIST report] while taking her children to school in the town of Nazran. It is believed that Gazgireyeva may have been killed for her role in investigating an attack [RTTNews report] on Ingush police forces by Chechen militants in 2004. Gazgireyeva's death came one week after the interior minister of the nearby region of Dagestan was shot dead. In April 2008, another deputy head of the Supreme Court in Ingushetia, Khasan Yandiyev, was shot and killed [JURIST report].

In April, 11 Philippines policemen and militia members pleaded not guilty to murder charges for their involvement in the massacre, only one month after a Quezon City court dismissed rebellion charges against 24 people [JURIST reports], including Andal Ampatuan Sr., the leader of a Muslim clan in the Philippines' semi-autonomous southern province of Maguindanao, and four of his family members. The Philippines Department of Justice [official website] had implicated Ampatuan and several of his followers in the November slayings [press release] of 57 campaign workers, journalists and supporters of family political rival Esmael Mangudadatu. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Mangudadatu's convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans' group killed and buried them.

Defendants are incorrect about much of their "parade of horribles" that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction. ... In this Court's view, a stay would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so. Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos.

Last year, President Barack Obama signed an executive order [JURIST report] permitting federal funding for some forms of embryonic stem cell research. Despite the executive order, Lamberth held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail based on existing law. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused similar changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5 materials], which was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos. In 2006, Bush vetoed a previous version [JURIST report] of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Senate to remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying he would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because many consider the destruction of embryos to be murder.

There are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The government understands that these are longstanding concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice.

The fairness of UK extradition laws have been the center of much debate in light of several prominent criminal cases. In July, a UK court blocked the extradition [JURIST report] of former Bosnian president Ejup Ganic [Trial Watch profile] to Serbia to stand trial for alleged war crimes, saying that the extradition request was politically motivated [AFP report] and an abuse of the processes of the court. Earlier this year, May announced that the extradition of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon [BBC profile; advocacy website] to the US would be delayed [JURIST report]. McKinnon was arrested by British police in 2002 and indicted [text, PDF] by US authorities later that year on charges of hacking NASA, Department of Defense, Air Force, Army and Navy computers in violation of US computer laws [18 USC § 1030 text]. At the time, May indicated [Times Online report] she would carefully consider the UK's extradition treaty with the US as well as McKinnon's medical history before she determines if the extradition order should stand.

CSLI from cell phone calls is obtainable under a § 2703(d) order and ... such an order does not require the traditional probable cause determination. ... The [magistrate judge] erred in allowing her impressions of the general expectation of privacy of citizens to transform that standard into anything else. We also conclude that this standard is a lesser one than probable cause. ... Because the statute as presently written gives the [magistrate judge] the option to require a warrant showing probable cause, we are unwilling to remove that option although it is an option to be used sparingly because Congress also included the option of a § 2703(d) order. However, should the [magistrate judge] conclude that a warrant is required rather than a § 2703(d) order, on remand it is imperative that the [magistrate judge] make fact findings and give a full explanation that balances the Governments need (not merely desire) for the information with the privacy interests of cell phone users.

Courts have struggled with how to apply Fourth Amendment protections to modern technology. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that prolonged use of global positioning systems (GPS) to monitor suspects' vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Knotts [opinion text] allows the use of tracking devices to follow vehicles from one place to another based on a lower expectation of privacy on public roads, the appeals court distinguished the instant case by finding that too much personal information is revealed over longer periods of time. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website] unanimously held [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that, even if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-issued electronic devices, that an employer's search of private text messages does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the search is not excessive and is pursuant to a legitimate work-related purpose. In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone. In 2005, a federal court in Maryland ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that US law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant before obtaining information from a cell phone service on the location of a cell phone user. The court noted that although the Fourth Amendment does not protect cell phone users who use their phones in public, probable cause is still required because the individual targeted by the search may use the phone from their home, which has clearly established Fourth Amendment protections.

In April, Chief Legal Counsel [official website] to the UN, Under-Secretary-General Patricia O'Brien [official profile, PDF], and Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An urged the international community [JURIST report] to provide financial support to the ECCC. The court has thus far yielded one conviction, that of Kaing Guek Eav [case materials], also known as "Duch," who was sentenced [JURIST report] to 35 years in prison for crimes against humanity in July. He later fired his international co-counsel ahead of an appeal [JURIST reports]. The prosecution also appealed [JURIST reports], seeking a longer term than the 19 years to which the court ultimately reduced his sentence.

Prisoners we interviewed repeatedly reported that police had beaten them in custody in order to try to coerce a confession, and often inflicted serious injuries. Inmates showed researchers their misshapen fingers—in some cases smashed by hammers or iron bats—and scars on their feet and hands. Many have long-term injuries that require ongoing medical attention, ostensibly due to their treatment in custody. ... Under international human rights law, people in detention retain their human rights and fundamental freedoms. As you will be aware, the most fundamental protection for detainees is the absolute prohibition on torture.

Earlier this year, HRW released a similar statement concerning the alleged abuse of prisoners [JURIST report] in a secret Iraqi prison. HRW stated that detainees held at the Muthanna facility, run by Iraqi authorities, were hung upside-down, deprived of air, kicked, whipped, beaten, given electric shocks and sodomized during torture sessions that detainees faced every three to four days. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [official website, in Arabic; BBC profile] denied the reports of a secret prison, claiming the facility was publicly known and that the reports of abuse are exaggerated. In June HRW lauded the Turkish government for its landmark conviction of several prison and police officials [JURIST report] for the torture and death of anti-government activist Engin Ceber while in police custody. The conviction marks the first time a Turkish court has convicted a senior prison official for the conduct of guards under his command.

The ICTR continues to try suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, died. In August, former Rwandan regional administrator Dominique Ntawukulilyayo was sentenced [JURIST report] by the ICTR to 25 years in prison for his role in the 1994 genocide. In July, Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [Hague Justice profile; case materials] pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to multiple similar genocide charges before the ICTR. Last October, Ugandan officials apprehended [JURIST report] another highly-sought suspect, former Hutu intelligence chief Idelphonse Nizeyimana [BBC profile; case materials]. Nizeyimana, who pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to four genocide counts [indictment, PDF], still awaits trial. Nizeyimana was one of four two accused sought by the ICTR in order to complete its mission. In June, UN Security Council [official website] extended the terms [press release] of ICTR trial judges to December 31, 2011, and appellate judges to December 31, 2012.

Electronic devices like laptops, "smart" phones, and external data storage devices hold vast amounts of personal and sensitive information that reveals a vivid pictures of travelers' personal and professional lives, including their intimate thoughts, private communications, expressive choices, and privileged or confidential work product. [The] policies and practices of searching, copying, and detaining these personal devices without suspicion or judicial supervision violates the constitutional rights of American citizens to keep the private and expressive details of their lives, as well as sensitive information obtained or created in the course of their work, free from unwarranted government scrutiny.

In 2008, US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) [official website] criticized [JURIST report] the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [official website] for warrantless searches and seizures of travelers' laptops and other digital devices at the US border, calling the searches an unacceptable invasion of privacy [hearing materials]. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable suspicion is not necessary to conduct routine searches at the border, but searches of laptops and other digital devices are analogous to more invasive practices such as strip searches, said Feingold.

The battle by the NBFA to receive an allocation of resources is over a decade old. In 2008, the NBFA brought a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] against the USDA, alleging on behalf of more than 800 black farmers that the USDA improperly discriminated against them. Many farmers were left out of the 1999 settlement [text, PDF; NALC backgrounder, PDF] after missing a filing deadline, and thousands more argued that the terms of the settlement were inadequate. After earlier accusations of unfair distribution of resources, the USDA created the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) [official website] in 2003 to monitor compliance with civil rights laws and to help ensure equality in the administration of the USDA's many programs.

Garzon has faced turmoil since his 2008 decision. In May, the Spanish General Counsel of the Judiciary (CGPJ) [official website, in Spanish] voted unanimously to suspend [JURIST report] Garzon. Later that month, the judiciary oversight committee of the CGPJ approved a request [JURIST report] by Garzon to work with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. The ICC asked [press release] Garzon to work for them as a consultant for a period of seven months in order to improve their investigative methods. Thousands gathered [JURIST report] in cities across Spain in April in support of Garzon, chanting slogans and displaying flags of the pre-war Republican government ousted by Franco. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

The international community continues with efforts to fight maritime piracy, both through the funding of UN-backed piracy courts, and through prosecution in multiple jurisdictions. In July, a court in Seychelles convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] a group of Somali pirates to 10 years in prison following the attempted hijacking of Seychelles coastguard ship. In June, the UN announced the opening of a new high-security courtroom [JURIST report] in Kenya that will hear piracy cases. The announcement came after the UN announced $9.3 million in donations [JURIST report] to help fund piracy courts in Kenya and Seychelles. Also in June, a Dutch court concluded Europe's first Somali pirate trial by convicting and sentencing a group of suspects [JURIST reports] to five years in prison. In May, a Yemeni court sentenced six pirates to death [JURIST report] for their roles in an attack on a Yemeni oil tanker in 2009. Charges are also currently pending [JURIST report] against piracy suspects in the US.

Last month, a federal judge ordered the release [JURIST report] of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainee Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif [NYT profile] citing a lack of evidence proving that Latif was part of a terrorist organization. In July, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] released a redacted opinion [JURIST report] holding that evidence against Algerian Guantanamo Bay detainee Belkacem Bensaya must be reviewed to determine if he was "part of" al Qaeda. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg, writing the opinion for the panel, held that there appeared to be no direct evidence linking Bensaya to al Qaeda, and that the government's authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [text, PDF] only extends to the detention of individuals who are "functionally part of" a terrorist organization. Bensayah was the only one of the six petitioners from the 2008 Boumediene v. Bush [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] decision who was not granted habeas corpus relief after the Supreme Court remanded the case for further review of evidence.

While the proposed amendment would allow Rajapaksa to make a bid for an unlimited number of terms in office, his second term has not yet begun, though he easily achieved victory [NYT report] in January elections. Rajapaksa is a consistently popular figure within Sri Lanka, primarily for his efforts in defeating the Tamil Tiger [JURIST news archive] rebels within Sri Lanka. That victory was not without cost, however, as numerous questions have been raised about the government's actions during the conflict, including the treatment of prisoners. Earlier this month, the Sri Lankan defense minister defended [JURIST report] the government's actions during the conflict. In July, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the Sri Lankan Government to improve conditions around UN offices in Colombo after a UN announcement of the formation of an international panel to investigate human rights abuses during the war resulted in days of pro-government protests [JURIST reports] near UN offices.

Prosecutors in Norway have yet to win a conviction under Norway's anti-terrorism laws [JURIST news archive], which were passed in response to the 9/11 attacks [JURIST news archive] on the US. In 2008, a Norwegian court acquitted three suspects [JURIST report] accused of planning to attack the US and Israeli embassies in Oslo in the first trial under the anti-terrorism law. Norway's anti-terrorism laws have been criticized [JURIST report] by the US in the past for being too lenient.

Last month, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] concluded its review [JURIST report] of France's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [text], finding that while France has a laudable action plan for eradicating racial discrimination, it must increase efforts to make the plan a reality. The report also questioned Sarkozy's July measures against illegal Roma communities [JURIST report] in France and the legislation aimed at making their deportation easier following riots by members of the Roma community.

The Bahraini government has faced repeated criticism over its human rights record in recent years. In February Human Rights Watch claimed the government had reverted to using torture [JURIST report] to gain confessions from detainees after a decade of reform banning such practices. The US State Department deplored impunity for human rights violations and crimes in Bahrain in its 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [JURIST report], The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) [advocacy website] has voiced similar concerns.

Petitioners could not have raised their claims regarding the timeliness of their petitions before the BIA because their claims arose after the entry of the final orders of removal. Nor could they have raised such claims in a timely petition in this Court because they only arose upon the expiration of the 30-day period within which they could have filed a timely petition for review. Thus, if the REAL ID Act is interpreted as precluding habeas review over petitioners' claims, there is no forum in which petitioners could seek relief. Moreover, petitioners raise precisely the type of constitutional claims for which habeas review, or an adequate and effective substitute, is most essential.

In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that RIDA gives a "reasonable opportunity" for judicial review [JURIST report] to those aliens whose removal orders became final before it entered into effect. Prior to RIDA's enactment, aliens convicted of crimes in the US could request judicial review through habeas petitions [28 USC § 2241 text], which were not subject to time restraints. In 2005, Judge William Young, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts criticized RIDA as a "virtually unprecedented" attack [JURIST report] on judicial independence, placing a "chokehold" on federal courts by removing their authority to hear deportation cases. Young claimed RIDA makes it harder for immigrants to gain amnesty by requiring deportation cases to be heard in a federal courts of appeals. Initially drafted after the 9/11 terror attacks [JURIST news archive] and designed to discourage illegal immigration, RIDA was passed in 2005 [JURIST report].