Last month, Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua [BBC obituary] died after suffering from a prolonged illness. His death formally transferred the presidency to then vice president Goodluck Jonathan [BBC profile], who had been acting president since February [JURIST report] when the parliament voted for him to take over. In January, a Nigerian court ruled that Yar'Adua was not required [JURIST report] to formally transfer his powers to Jonathan or any other interim leader. Also in January, the court ordered [JURIST report] Nigeria's cabinet to pass a resolution within 14 days on whether Yar'Adua was capable of running the country. Yar'Adua traveled to Saudi Arabia in November for medical treatment without naming an interim leader, touching off a constitutional crisis.

The underrepresenation and exclusion of people of color from juries has seriously undermined the credibility and reliability of the criminal justice system, and there is an urgent need to end this practice. While courts sometimes have attempted to remedy the problem of discriminatory jury selection, in too many cases today we continue to see indifference to racial bias.

The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] tried to limit the practice of racial discrimination in jury selection in the 1986 case of Batson v. Kentucky [opinion text]. Baston held that a defendant has no right to a jury composed of members of his own race, but also held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [text] guarantees a defendant that potential jurors will not be excluded from jury service based on race.

During the summer of 2009, KP appointed a team to conduct a Review Mission [press release, PDF] in Zimbabwe. They suggested that Zimbabwe's membership to the organization be revoked [Times Live, report] for at least six months while the KP could ascertain that minimum standards were being met. The KP then sent its chairperson to Zimbabwe for informative purposes. Despite the allegations, Zimbabwe's deputy minister of Mines and Mining Development of Zimbabwe, in an address delivered at the KP Intercessional Meeting [press release, PDF] earlier this year, emphasized Zimbabwe's dedication to the principles and effective implementation of the KPCS. Illicit trade in rough diamonds has been closely linked to armed conflict [UN backgrounder] in Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone. Since its inception in 2003, the KP has operated [backgrounder] by endeavoring to require its members to follow the regulations set forth by the KPSC, and in turn certifies their shipments of rough diamonds as "conflict-free."

Rwandan police on Friday arrested Erlinder [JURIST report] in Kigali on charges that he denied the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Erlinder, a defense lawyer at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and president of the ICTR's Association of Defense Lawyers [official websites] (ADAD), was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza [campaign website], who was arrested [JURIST report] last month on similar charges. International groups including the National Lawyers Guild, the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [advocacy websites] have called for Erlinder's release [press release], saying that the charges are politically motivated [AP report]. The William Mitchell College of Law has expressed concern for his safety [press release], saying they "support his commitment to justice, the rule of law, and public service." Rwandan Public Prosecutor Martin Ngoga said that Erlinder had become an organizer of genocide deniers [AFP report] and that Erlinder had traveled to Rwanda with full knowledge that denial of the genocide is illegal there.

National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to curb addiction to games of chance and to combat fraud, and which in fact contributes to the achievement of those objectives, can be regarded as limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner even where the holder(s) of an exclusive licence are entitled to make what they are offering on the market attractive by introducing new games and by means of advertising. It is for the national court to determine whether unlawful gaming activities constitute a problem in the Member State concerned which might be solved by the expansion of authorised and regulated activities, and whether that expansion is on such a scale as to make it impossible to reconcile with the objective of curbing such addiction.

The US has also taken recently taken steps to tighten restrictions on Internet gambling. Earlier this week, official federal enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) [HR 4411 materials] began. The UIGEA, which bans banks and financial institutions from intentionally accepting payments from credit cards, checks, or electronic fund transfers related to unlawful Internet bets was scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2009, but enforcement was delayed [JURIST report] in November until June 1. The delay allowed US banks and financial institutions six months to get in compliance with the new rules designed to curb Internet gambling. The act was signed into law [JURIST report] by then-president George W. Bush in October 2006 amid controversy over the effects of the bill on US bettors and foreign companies. The US House of Representatives passed the UIGEA [JURIST report] in July 2006 and included exemptions for Internet gambling on horse racing and state lotteries.

Even where the laws of war are clearly applicable, there has been a tendency to expand who may permissibly be targeted and under what conditions. Moreover, the States concerned have often failed to specify the legal justification for their policies, to disclose the safeguards in place to ensure that targeted killings are in fact legal and accurate, or to provide accountability mechanisms for violations. Most troublingly, they have refused to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined licence to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum.

Last year, Alston noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal [JURIST report] under international law. 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. In March, US State Department [official website] Legal Adviser Harold Koh [academic profile] defended the strikes [JURIST report], arguing that they do not violate current international laws. The statements followed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] to obtain more information about the drone attacks [JURIST report]. In April, a US subcommittee heard testimony on the legality of unmanned drone strikes [JURIST report]. In his opening remarks, subcommittee chair John Tierney said the drone strikes raise very complex legal issues and the US government needs to determine when and where an attack may legally occur, and at what point collateral damage becomes an issue.

Judges have also been victims of violent attacks in other countries. Earlier this week, three judges were killed in a Chinese courthouse [JURIST report] by a man allegedly upset over the division of marital assets. 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.

For far too long, many of our Government's hard-working, dedicated LGBT employees have been denied equal access to the basic rights and benefits their colleagues enjoy. This kind of systemic inequality undermines the health, well-being, and security not just of our Federal workforce, but also of their families and communities.

The new benefits build upon those extended in June 2009 when Obama signed [JURIST report] a memorandum [text] allowing domestic partners to be added to insurance programs, to use medical facilities, and to be included in family size and house allocation considerations. In February, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley [official profile] moved for summary judgment [text, PDF; JURIST report] in a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Coakley has argued that the federal law interferes with the state's right to define and regulate marriage and alleges that DOMA excludes more than 16,000 married same-sex couples and their families in Massachusetts from rights and protections afforded to other married couples. The state alleges that it creates separate and unequal categories of married individuals, prohibiting same-sex spouses from filing joint federal tax returns, receiving Social Security survivor benefits, guaranteed leave from work for spousal illness and other rights given to married couples of the opposite sex. The Obama administration has said DOMA is discriminatory but has maintained that it is nonetheless constitutional. In March, the District of Columbia joined Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts [JURIST reports], and the Coquille Indian Tribe [OregonLive report] in legalizing same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], extending the full benefits available at the state level to same-sex spouses.

Militia groups such as the Hutaree are reportedly on the rise in the US. A recent report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center [advocacy website] suggests that a lack of regulation on the Internet [JURIST report] is fueling this increased prevalence. A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) [advocacy website; JURIST comment], released last year, noted that these groups are making a comeback [JURIST report] after declining in number for several years. The SPLC said that such groups are generally anti-tax, anti-immigration, and increasingly racially motivated since the election of the country's first African-American president, Barack Obama. The SPLC also warned that these groups could soon pose a security risk to the country, quoting one official as saying "[a]ll it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."

This legislation will bring Canada in line with international standards and promote home-grown innovation and creativity. It is a fair, balanced and common-sense approach, respecting both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers in a modern marketplace. The Government of Canada is working to secure Canada's place in the digital economy and to promote a more prosperous and competitive Canada.

This latest announcement comes less than a month after the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus [official website] released the 2010 International Piracy Watch list [text, PDF; JURIST report], which named Canada one of the worst countries for protecting copyrighted information. Also last month, the Office of the US Trade Representative [official website] placed Canada on its Priority Watch List [JURIST report] of countries that are not adequately protecting intellectual property rights. Canada first appeared on the USTR Priority Watch list in 2009 [JURIST report].

Ethnic tensions and discrimination are problematic in Italy, where illegal immigration is a growing problem. In January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] dismissed a suit against Italy [JURIST report] by Palestinian immigrants alleging illegal expulsion from the country. Earlier that month, a group of African immigrants was evacuated [JURIST report] from the town of Rosarno after violence was directed towards migrant farm workers there. In August, rights groups criticized Italy [JURIST report] for returning a suspected terrorist to Tunisia, disregarding obligations imposed by the ECHR. Last July, the Italian Senate approved a law [JURIST report] that would criminalize illegal immigration with a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and up to six months detention before deportation.