The Turkish ship on which the violence occurred [ABC report] was one of six organized [Guardian backgrounder] by the Free Gaza Movement [advocacy website] to carry protesters and humanitarian supplies to the isolated Palestinian enclave. The Gaza naval blockade began in 2007 [Montreal Gazette backgrounder] after Hamas [CFR backgrounder], designated as a terrorist organization [text] by the US State Department, was elected [JURIST report] as the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. In January 2008, then-UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour condemned the blockade [JURIST report], saying that it was collective punishment.

During the opening day of the review conference on Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] hailed [JURIST report] the dawning of an "age of accountability" of the ICC. Ban described the first conference as a "landmark in the history of international criminal justice." Ban went on to defend the ICC against charges of selectivity in its investigations, which has been an accusation frequently leveled at the court due to the fact that most of its caseload is from Africa, causing tense relations with the governments in the region. Ban stated that "African society is cheering" because the court is on the side of the victims. Ban pointed to the support for the court among African non-governmental organizations as an indication of support for the ICC from African civil society. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] described the change [BBC report] in the international legal system since the establishment of the court as a legal revolution, and said the the attitude in Africa was changing in favor of the court.

What impact would moving forward in the absence of clarity and consensus - real consensus, not expedient compromise - on these fundamental questions have on the Court itself? Will States parties enhance the prospects for universality by moving to adopt this crime at a time when there is genuine disagreement on core issues, or by placing the prosecutor in a position where he must make decisions - whether to pursue aggression charges in particular cases - that organizations such as Human Rights Watch have cautioned "may well give rise to perceptions of political bias and instrumentalization - even if such perceptions are ... unfounded?" And will they enhance the prospects for consolidating the Court's role in ensuring that those who perpetrate war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide are held to account? ... We believe that moving forward now on the crime of aggression without genuine consensus could undermine the Court.

On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] hailed [JURIST report] the dawning of an "age of accountability" during the opening day of the review session of the ICC. Ban described the first review conference, where delegates from ICC member states will consider amendments to the founding statute [texts], as a "landmark in the history of international criminal justice." Ban went on to defend the ICC against charges of selectivity in its investigations, which has been an accusation frequently leveled at the court due to the fact that most of its caseload is from Africa, causing tense relations with the governments in the region. Ban stated that "African society is cheering" because the court is on the side of the victims. Ban pointed to the support for the court among African non-governmental organizations as an indication of support for the ICC from African civil society. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] described the change [BBC report] in the international legal system since the establishment of the court as a legal revolution, and said the the attitude in Africa was changing in favor of the court. Last week, a collection of African civil society organizations urged greater cooperation [JURIST report] between the ICC and African nations during the review conference. The group of 124 organizations called on African governments to enhance their cooperation with the court and to make greater efforts in the execution of outstanding warrants.

Quebec's strict language education laws have long been an issue of political debate. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld [JURIST report] Bill 101, which requires French-speaking parents to send their children to francophone schools. Under the bill, parents must have received the majority of their own schooling in English to be able to have their children educated in that language. Eight families had sought to prove that Bill 101 was discriminatory in precluding their children from receiving an education in English. The court found that members of the linguistic majority have no constitutional right to an education in English, the minority language in Quebec.

The Spanish Senate [official website, in Spanish] gave final approval to the bill in February. Spain's lower house of parliament, the Congress of Deputies [official website, in Spanish], passed the bill in December after it received approval [JURIST reports] from the Council of State in September. The changes were proposed [JURIST report] last March by a panel of legal and medical experts led by Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido [official website, in Spanish], eliciting widespread protests [JURIST report] throughout Spain. The panel was formed [JURIST report] in September 2008 at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero [official profile, in Spanish] as part of a series of social reforms that have included same-sex marriage [JURIST report] and streamlined divorce proceedings.

The Act establishes ... that for a person who is stopped, detained or arrested, there is a presumption that person is not an alien unlawfully in the United States if the person produces an Arizona driver's license. For persons from New Mexico and other states where proof of citizenship is not required for a driver's license, there is no such presumption. Persons with New Mexico or other out-of-state licenses engaged in interstate commerce are thus required by the Act to obtain and carry additional documentation such as a passport or birth certificate, proving that they are citizens or lawful aliens. Such documentation is not normally carried by all persons engaged in interstate commerce. ... The imposition of a burden on out-of-state commerce and a preference for in-state commerce discriminates against interstate commerce and violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

Last week, Brewer said that she will not seek the assistance [JURIST report] of state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) [official website] in defending against challenges to the new immigration law. Brewer cited a provision in the new immigration bill that gives her authority to seek the assistance of outside counsel rather than the assistance of the attorney general in defending the bill. Several lawsuits have been filed in response to the bill, which was signed into law [JURIST report] at the end of April. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] filed suit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] last month, challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking an injunction, though some find the law constitutional on its face [JURIST op-ed]. Proponents of the law argue that it will discourage illegal immigration, while opponents contend it will lead to discriminatory police practices based on race. The Obama administration, though supporting immigration reform, has sharply criticized the law [JURIST report], calling it "misguided" and expressing concern that it could be applied in a discriminatory fashion. These criticisms are shared by Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] who called the law a "violation of human rights" [JURIST report]. In May, a group of UN experts found that the law could violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US.

We are very concerned about the privacy implications stemming from Google's confirmation that it had been capturing WiFi data in neighborhoods across Canada and around the world over the past several years. We have a number of questions about how this collection could have happened and about the impact on people's privacy. We've determined that an investigation is the best way to find the answers.

Google has recently faced several legal battles, including a string of copyright infringement lawsuits. In April, Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled that the use of thumbnail preview images pulled from websites by Google is not a violation of copyright law [JURIST report]. The original lawsuit was brought against Google by an artist who had images of her work pulled from her website and displayed on Google's image search index without her express permission. Earlier that month, several visual artist organizations in the US filed a class action suit [JURIST report] alleging copyright infringement resulting from the company's book scanning project [Google books website]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] in March urged a federal court to reject [JURIST report] the proposed class action settlements [Authors Guild backgrounder] in a separate copyright suit [case materials] between text authors and Google due to copyright and antitrust concerns. In February, a federal judge heard arguments [JURIST report] on the proposed settlement but did not indicate when a ruling could be expected.

Use of the death penalty continues to be an international concern. In February, Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze [official profile] praised the increasing number of countries [text; JURIST report] that have suspended or abolished the death penalty. Also in February the Supreme People's Court of China [official website, in Chinese] issued new guidelines for limiting capital punishment [JURIST report] in Chinese courts, relying on a policy of "justice tempered with mercy." In January, Mongolian President Elbegdorj Tsakhia announced that he would suspend the death penalty [JURIST report] and commute the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to 30 years in prison. In November, the Russian Constitutional Court [official website, in Russian] extended [JURIST report] a moratorium on the death penalty until the country's parliament ratifies an international treaty abolishing capital punishment.

continues to withhold from the public key documents relating to the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation program; has urged courts not to allow torture victims to bring claims under the Constitution; and has invoked the "state secrets" privilege to shield Bush administration officials from civil liability. An ongoing investigation of the torture program initiated by the Justice Department in August 2009 excludes top-level officials.

In April, another ACLU FOIA suit resulted in the release [JURIST report] of internal Central Intelligence Agency [official website] documents [part 1, PDF; part 2, PDF; part 3, PDF] revealing that a former agency head may have agreed to the destruction of videotapes [JURIST news archive] showing harsh interrogations of terror suspects. Also in April, former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Adel Hassan Hamad [advocacy website; NYT backgrounder] filed suit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] against the US government and more than a dozen government officials. Hamad, a Sudanese aid worker captured in Pakistan in 2002, claims he was tortured during his time at Guantanamo Bay. In March, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website] denied [decision, PDF; JURIST report] a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. In August, Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] named a special prosecutor [WP report] who has been tasked with investigating the alleged abuse of detainees and other terrorism suspects by CIA interrogators. The probe is limited to determining whether individuals went beyond authorized techniques when interrogating suspects.

As a result, the Department is not fully prepared to provide a coordinated response to a WMD incident. For example, the Department does not assign one entity or individual with the responsibility for the central oversight or management of WMD incident response. The Department has not updated its policies to reflect recent national policies, and the Department's operational response policies and plans have not been fully implemented. Moreover, no components other than the FBI have specific WMD operational response plans or provide training on responding to a WMD incident...We found that no Department law enforcement component, other than the FBI, has specific WMD operational response plans. [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)], the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) each have groups that manage all-hazards responses, but these groups do not include specific preparations for WMD incidents.

While the inspector general's report was overwhelmingly critical of the DOJ, Fine held that the FBI has taken "appropriate steps" in creating a plan of action for its designated WMD attack responsibilities. The FBI's primary mission is to prevent WMD incidents and investigate WMD threats, and it is also responsible for creating a response plan in the event of an attack. Fine stated that the FBI, which also operates under the DOJ, has created plans, handbooks and other resources to educate agents on its response plan and regularly provides its staff with training specific to WMD incidents. The FBI also provides specialized training to new agents during their initial academy training. The report listed only one critique for the FBI, stating that "we found that the preparation of after action reports to document deficiencies identified during WMD response exercises is inconsistent, which hinders the FBI's ability to identify and address those deficiencies." The DOJ responded to the report stating that it concurred with the findings and will work to implement Fine's suggestions. The ATF has not yet provided a formal response.

The suit was brought [JURIST report] by the family of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder after Reverend Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church [WARNING: readers may find material at this church website offensive; JURIST news archive] picketed his funeral. Phelps and members of his church have been traveling around the country picketing military funerals in recent years, claiming US soldiers have been killed because America tolerates homosexuals. A federal judge awarded the family [JURIST report] almost $11 million in damages, but the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding [opinion, PDF] that Phelps's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

Judges have also been victims of violent attacks in other countries. In April, a Moscow City Court [official website] judge known for presiding over cases involving neo-Nazi groups was killed [JURIST report] while leaving his apartment. The murder of Judge Eduard Chuvashov was suspected to be a contract killing in light of the death threats he faced after presiding over the trials of members of neo-Nazi gangs. In November, a Somali judge known for jailing suspected pirates [JURIST news archive], human traffickers, and Islamist insurgents was shot dead [JURIST report] while leaving a mosque in the Puntland city of Bossaso. Judge Mohamed Abdi Aware of the Puntland high court and the Puntland Supreme Judicial Council, had recently jailed four members of the al-Shabaab Islamist group and had sentenced 12 suspected pirates to terms ranging from three to eight years. Last June, Aza Gazgireyeva, deputy head of the Supreme Court in Russia's Ingushetia province [official website, in Russian; BBC backgrounder] was gunned down [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 on Ingush police forces by Chechen militants in 2004.