Bahraini authorities should immediately investigate these allegations of torture and guarantee the physical and psychological well-being of the four men. The attorney general has a legal obligation to throw out any coerced confessions and any evidence obtained by ill-treatment, including information that led to the men's indictments.

In early 2010, HRW reported that the government of Bahrain had reverted to using torture [report text] to gain confessions from detainees, after a decade of reform banning such practices. HRW conducted interviews with 20 former detainees who claimed that they had suffered torture [JURIST report] and ill-treatment as early as 2007. The reversion appears to have coincided with the rising political tension between Shia Muslims and the Sunni-run government. The report also claimed that prosecutors have failed to respond appropriately by not launching formal investigations and administering medical examinations. The detainees' allegations were strengthened when a Bahraini court acquitted all defendants on all charges on the basis of medical reports that suggested the defendants had been physically coerced into confessing.

Under the ICC's new amendment, the UN Security Council [official website] will serve as the primary body in determining whether a crime of aggression has occurred. If the Security Council fails to make a determination, the ICC prosecutor is authorized to commence an investigation on his own initiative or upon a request from an ICC state party. The Security Council can halt an investigation of a crime of aggression at any time through a resolution, but this resolution must be reinstated every 12 months. Non-state parties do not fall under ICC jurisdiction when the prosecutor initiates the investigation, and state parties can exempt themselves from jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by submitting a declaration of non-acceptance to the court. These exemptions, however, do not apply when the Security Council has determined that a crime of aggression has occurred. ICC nations were initially unable to reach a consensus [JURIST report] on the adoption of the crime of aggression, but compromise was reached as the UN Review Conference of the Rome Statute [materials] came to a close in Kampala, Uganda.

The forthcoming report claims that troops from Rwanda [JURIST news archive] and allied rebels committed crimes in the DRC that could be classified as genocide if proven by the appropriate court. Documenting the extreme violence in the DRC from 1993-2003, the report alleges that tens of thousands of Hutus were killed by Rwandan troops [JURIST report] during the Congo civil war [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which more than 800,000 primarily Tutsi people were killed in a span of 100 days, Hutu militias and civilians fled to neighboring Congo, then known as Zaire. According to the New York Times, the report documents systematic killings [NYT report] by the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan army with the assistance of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL) rebel movement, which may legally amount to genocide. While Rwanda and the DRC have continually asserted that Hutu militias were attacked following the 1994 genocide, the report alleges that civilian Congolese Hutus were also the target of violence and killings. Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karagurama [official website] has rejected the report [BBC report], saying that it had no basis.

Thaksin, who is currently living in exile, has faced a variety of legal issues since the 2006 coup [JURIST report] that removed him from power. Last month, the Supreme Court of Thailand [GlobaLex backgrounder] denied his appeal [JURIST report] contesting the seizure of his assets. Thaksin filed the appeal in March after the Constitutional Court ordered that 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) of his fortune be seized [JURIST reports] in February. In July, the criminal division of Supreme Court issued a new arrest warrant [JURIST report] against him. Also in July, Thai police recommended terrorism charges [DPA report] against Thaksin and 24 others for their alleged involvement in the recent political violence [JURIST news archive] in Bangkok. Thaksin is considered the figurehead of the pro-democracy protesters known as the "red shirts," who protested against Thailand's current government and called for elections. The protests ended in May after protesters surrendered to police [JURIST report].

Feldman refused to reinstate the moratorium [JURIST report] last month at the request of advocacy groups such as the Defenders of Wildlife [advocacy website], which also argued that the judge should be disqualified from the case because he owned stock in several oil and drilling companies. Feldman refused to recuse himself [JURIST report]. Earlier in July, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the original six-month drilling moratorium [JURIST report], arguing that the ban should be upheld because the government would likely win its appeal of the lower court's ruling. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] originally asked the court of appeals to stay the preliminary injunction [JURIST report] in June, on the basis that another deepwater spill could overwhelm the ongoing efforts to clean up the spill with catastrophic results. Lawyers for the DOJ also claimed that that the district judge abused his discretion in issuing the injunction. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a result of an oil well blowout that caused an explosion 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. More than 120 million gallons of oil leaked from the rig's broken pipe causing the spill to surpass the Exxon Valdez [JURIST news archive] as the worst oil spill in US history.

Also Wednesday, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] announced that it has declared the TTP a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) [press release] under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [materials]. "Today's actions put the TTP and its sympathizers on notice that the United States will not tolerate support of this organization," said DOS Coordinator for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin. "TTP's destabilizing effect in Pakistan's tribal areas has resulted in innumerable civilian deaths and considerable property losses." The DOS also announced a $5 million bounty for information leading to the capture of Mehsud.

The DOJ says Hakimullah Mehsud is currently "a fugitive believed to be residing in the [Federally Administered Tribal Area] (FATA)" in the southern region of Pakistan. However, reports emerged in January suggesting that he had died [NYT report] from wounds sustained during a January 14 drone attack in the tribal region. Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly assumed leadership [BBC report] of the TTP after Baitullah's death. TTP has been implicated in or claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including multiple assaults on NATO supply lines in the FATA, a 2009 attack on a police station in the Bannu province and the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [JURIST report], for which Baitullah Mehsud was charged [JURIST report] in a Pakistani anti-terrorism court. According to the DOJ, the TTP is believed to have coordinated most of their efforts with other terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich [JURIST news archive] also tried to cite Skilling in his defense against corruption charges. However, in June, the presiding judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a request [JURIST report] to delay the Blagojevich trial, holding that the Supreme Court's decision was unlikely to affect Blagojevich's case. In 2008, Ryan issued his first public apology [JURIST report] for the crimes that resulted in his imprisonment. Ryan was sentenced in 2007 and jailed [JURIST reports] on corruption charges. Ryan's trial began in 2005, and, in 2006, a jury found him guilty [JURIST reports] on multiple counts of corruption and fraud [indictment, PDF] in connection with a bribes-for-licenses scandal that occurred during Ryan's term as Illinois Secretary of State. Ryan made national headlines and won praise in some quarters in January 2003 when, just before leaving office, he commuted the executions [BBC report] of all Illinois inmates then on death row.

The persons singled out and favored by Texas's marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate. The state's interest in "fostering relationships that will serve children best" is a legitimate interest within the state's authority to regulate. Thus, although a person's sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society in general, it does bear on whether he or she will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation and thus trigger the state's legitimate interest in child-rearing. Accordingly, [precedent] does not support appellee's contention that homosexuals are a suspect class.We conclude that homosexuals are not a suspect class, that persons who choose to marry persons of the same sex are not a suspect class, and that the Texas law at issue in this case does not discriminate against a suspect class.

The Texas ruling stands in contrast to the decision handed down last month by a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], finding that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. In the ruling, the court found that even though homosexuals should be treated as a suspect class, it was unnecessary because the ban failed to satisfy even rational basis review. Citing the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans [text], the court held that "moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a women is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, ... is not a proper basis on which to legislate." The case is currently being appealed [JURIST report] to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage, including the District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts [JURIST reports] and the Coquille Indian Tribe [OregonLive report].

The settlement agreement came less than a month after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo [JURIST news archive] filed civil charges [complaint; JURIST report] against BOA, former CEO Ken Lewis and former CFO Joseph Price, alleging that the bank misled investors in order to acquire Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch had significant losses in the months leading up to a shareholder vote on the merger and that Lewis and Price violated the New York Martin Act [WLF backgrounder, PDF] because they knew of the losses but failed to disclose them to shareholders before the vote. In June, BOA subsidiary Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that the subsidiary collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. The agreement allows the FTC to create a fund to provide refunds to borrowers affected by Countrywide's improper fees.

Also last week, Brewer filed the state's opening brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website], asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction blocking Arizona's immigration law from taking full effect. In the brief, Arizona argued that the preliminary injunction should be vacated because Bolton applied the wrong legal standard in issuing the preliminary injunction. Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for expedited appeal [JURIST reports]. The preliminary injunction [JURIST report] came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] in July. Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling. The American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website].

So long as rapists remain at large, they hold the whole reputation of the Congo hostage...The time when sexual violence is tolerated and sidelined as a product of war is over...[Y]ou cannot have a policy of zero tolerance backed by zero consequences.

Last week, members of the Security Council expressed "outrage" [JURIST report] over the recent mass rape in the DRC calling for justice for the victims. Human rights have long been a major concern in the DRC. In June, national police chief John Numbi was suspended [JURIST report] as part of the ongoing investigation into the murder of human rights activist Floribert Chebeya. In December, HRW urged the UN Organization Mission in DR Congo (MUNOC) [official website] to stop funding military groups [JURIST report] in the country that are committing human rights abuses. In December 2008, AI reported that rape and sexual warfare have been employed [JURIST report] by both the DRC military and by rebel forces. In November 2008, MUNOC head Alan Doss [appointment release] condemned [JURIST report] the killing of civilians by militias in the country as war crimes. MONUC has been operating in DRC since 1999. The conflict in the DRC has claimed more than four million lives and has been ongoing since 1983. MONUC has overseen elections and continues to provide armed protection for civilians in certain areas, particularly the North and South Kivus provinces.

Lamberth granted the injunction on the basis that the federal funding violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a provision at Division F, Section 509 of the annual Omnibus Appropriations Act [2009 edition materials], which prohibits appropriated funds from financing research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their 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.

The US State Department (DOS) [official website] criticized Russia [JURIST report] in its 2009 report on Human Rights Practices [text], writing that "[t]he government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest." In a January 31 protest, more than 100 protesters were arrested [JURIST report]. According to statistics [chart; PDF] from the ECHR, Russia has more complaints than any other country pending before the court. The ECHR has recently issued several high-profile decisions related to Russia, including a ruling [JURIST report] in March that Russia was responsible for disappearances in Chechnya.

January's ruling was the DC Circuit's first Guantanamo habeas corpus ruling since the US Supreme Court decided Boumedine v. Bush [opinion text; JURIST report] in 2008. While all three members of the panel concurred in the result, one member wrote separately to question the conclusion that international laws of war have no bearing on the president's detention authority. In July, the DC Circuit ruled in Bensaya v. Obama [opinion, PDF] that the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that an enemy combatant is "part of" a terrorist group [JURIST report]. The circuit court held 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 Boumediene who was not granted habeas relief after the Supreme Court remanded the case for further review of evidence.

In their report, AI cited the arrest of US lawyer and JURIST Forum [website] contributor Peter Erlinder [professional profile; JURIST news archive] under a related law as an example of the misapplication of the country's genocide laws. Rwandan police arrested Erlinder [JURIST report] in May on charges that he denied the 1994 genocide. Erlinder was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza [campaign website], who was arrested in April [JURIST report] on similar charges. Erlinder pleaded not guilty [JURIST report], but was deemed a flight risk [AFP report] and initially denied bail, despite his claim that he needed to return to the US for medical treatment following what Rwandan officials say was a suicide attempt [JURIST report]. He was released from custody and returned to the US [JURIST reports] in June after being detained for more than 30 days.

Several countries have recently addressed the issue of recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Mexico [official website, in Spanish] ruled 9-2 that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognized nationwide [JURIST report]. Additionally, a US federal judge ruled that the California state ban on same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution [JURIST report]. Last month, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez [official website, in Spanish] signed a same-sex marriage bill into law after the bill was approved by the legislature [JURIST reports], making Argentina the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in several US jurisdictions, and nationwide in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and South Africa [JURIST reports].

Last month, the Indian government apologized for improperly dumping waste [JURIST report] related to the Bhopal incident. The apology came one month after cabinet ministers announced the government would consider increasing compensation for victims of the disaster [JURIST report] and seek the extradition of the former chairman of Union Carbide so he could stand trial in India. A settlement was reached between Union Carbide and the Indian government in 1989 with the company paying $470 million to end its liability. The cabinet members, however, indicated the government was willing to revisit the settlement and possibly seek further compensation from Union Carbide. Dow Chemicals [corporate website], which purchased Union Carbide in 1999, contends that the settlement ended all possible claims against the company.

Judges have reported threatening letters and emails directed at them and their families, chairs thrown at them, and their robes being grabbed while on the bench. One judge had her automobile's brake lines cut and one respondent in an immigration hearing attempted suicide in front of the judge.

Threats against judges, US attorneys and assistant US attorneys have more than doubled over the last six years, according to a report [text, PDF] released [JURIST report] in January by the US Department of Justice. The report found that judges, US attorneys and assistant US attorneys received 1,278 threats in 2008, compared to 592 in 2003. Additionally, the report found that threats are not always consistently and promptly reported. Earlier this month, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey was convicted [JURIST report] by a federal jury for death threats made on his blog against federal judges who upheld a gun control law. In December 2008, Brian Nichols was sentenced to seven life terms to be served consecutively in addition to other punishment for shooting and killing a superior court judge [JURIST reports] and other personnel in an Atlanta courthouse in an attempted escape. In April 2008, Ohio resident David Tuason was indicted for allegedly threatening to blow up the US Supreme Court building [JURIST report] and attack black men, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Other death threats [JURIST report] have been reported in recent years against Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Earlier this month, the ACLU and the CCR obtained a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) license that enables them to represent Anwar al-Awlaqi, but announced they are still pursuing a legal challenge [JURIST reports] to the licensing scheme. The Obama administration has defended [JURIST report] its use of targeted killings, specifically those made by unmanned predator drone strikes [JURIST news archive]. State Department Legal Adviser [official website] Harold Koh [academic profile] has said the drones "comply with all applicable law" because they target only military targets and enable minimal damage to civilians and civilian structures. Last October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal [JURIST report]. Alston said, "[t]he onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons." Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly's human rights committee that was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.

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 [JURIST report] to improve conditions around UN offices in Colombo after a UN announcement [JURIST report] of the formation of an international panel to investigate human rights abuses during the war resulted in days of pro-government protests [JURIST report] near UN offices.

In April, Bemba's lawyers asked the court to drop the charges [JURIST report], arguing that Bremba was denied due process and the charges are illegal. In December, the ICC ordered [text, PDF] Bemba to remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. The ruling reversed a decision [JURIST report] issued last August ordering Bemba's conditional release. The order for release was opposed by ICC prosecutors who appealed [JURIST report] the original decision. The ICC ordered Bemba to stand trial [JURIST report] for war crimes allegedly committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) [BBC backgrounder]. Bemba was arrested [JURIST report] in Belgium in May 2008 after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest for his actions in the CAR. He was indicted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and transferred [JURIST report] to the ICC in July 2008.

In April, the Rwandan Supreme Court [official website] ruled that the plea for release by DRC rebel leader Laurent Nkunda [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] can only be heard by a military court [JURIST report]. According to Nkunda's counsel, he is being held illegally without charge. In 2009, a Rwandan court rejected [JURIST report] a similar lawsuit seeking Nkunda's release from custody. Nkunda was apprehended by Rwandan authorities last January near the DRC border after a joint DRC-Rwandan military operation to capture him and root out Rwandan Hutu rebels operating in the DRC. The DRC government called on Rwanda to extradite Nkunda to DRC where he would face charges for atrocities allegedly committed by forces under his command. In 2006, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that it does not have jurisdiction over a case filed by the DRC against Rwanda on charges of aggression and human rights abuses stemming from the DRC civil war. The ICJ asserted that Rwanda has not accepted UN conventions against human rights crimes like torture and degrading behavior, and therefore the ICJ could not rule [ICJ jurisdiction rules] on the charges upon which Congo based its case. Congo filed the suit [ICJ press release] against Rwanda in 2002, alleging armed aggression, mass slaughter, rape, arbitrary detentions, systematic looting and assassinations, while asking Rwanda to withdraw its troops. Public hearings [ICJ docket; JURIST report] began in the case in 2005.

The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration.

Arizona's new immigration law has been the model for proposed laws in a number of other states. Earlier this month, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum proposed a similar law for his state [JURIST report], and Virginia's Attorney General issued an opinion that police within his state may inquire as to the immigration status [JURIST report] of those whom they stop or arrest. In late July, a federal district judge enjoined many provisions of the Arizona law [JURIST report], and efforts by the state to have review of that decision expedited to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were denied by that court [JURIST report]. The Justice Department filed its complaint in early July [JURIST report], alleging that Arizona's attempt to pass immigration laws is preempted by federal law, and thus runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

In June, an Iranian military court sentenced two men to death [JURIST report] by hanging for the killings. Nine others were sentenced to prison terms, and one suspect was acquitted. The defendants, whose trial began [JURIST report] in March, included 11 policemen and one civilian. Observers have accused [CNN report] the Iranian government of conducting the trial as a mere political move. The Iranian government was sharply criticized by both pro-democracy leaders and government supporters for the death of the protesters. Authorities initially claimed that the three men had died from meningitis, holding that the torture accusations were the propaganda of the opposition party. This viewpoint began to shift in August when government officials spoke out [JURIST report] against the abuse of protesters detained in Iranian prisons, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [official website] ordered the closure of Kahrizak prison as a result.

Kenya wishes to reaffirm her commitment to co-operate with the ICC, contrary to the statements of the ICC and some UN Security Council Members, some of who have no obligation to the ICC. Indeed, in the recent past, Kenya has demonstrated good faith and co-operated fully with the ICC on the situation in Darfur thereby contributing to the overall objective of combating impunity and bringing justice to the people of Darfur. The extent of that support and assistance is well within the knowledge of ICC.

On Friday, the ICC reported Kenya [decision, PDF; JURIST report] to the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute over al-Bashir's visit. Last month, al-Bashir also visited Chad, another member state. The ICC also reported Chad [decision, PDF] Friday to the Security Council and Assembly of States Parties. In July, the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC charged al-Bashir [JURIST report; JURIST news archive] with three counts of genocide [warrant, PDF] in relation to the Darfur conflict [BBC backgrounder]. The chamber found that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that Bashir had committed genocide against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. The charges included "genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction." The genocide charges were added to the seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity that were filed against Bashir [JURIST report] in March 2009. The warrant has been controversial, with Egypt, Sudan, the African Union and others calling for the proceedings against Bashir to be delayed, and African Union leaders agreeing [JURIST reports] not to cooperate with the warrant.