Rajapaksa was first elected president in 2005 and was re-elected in January after dissolving parliament [JURIST report] in February. Rajapaksa's opponent in January was former army chief Sarath Fonseka [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], who was arrested [JURIST report] by the military in February after losing the election. In April, Fonseka appeared before parliament to call for both his freedom and respect for the "rule of law" [JURIST report]. Fonseka argued for his release from what he characterized as an "illegal detention" and a byproduct of injustice. In March, the former chief justice of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court [official website] accused the government [JURIST report] of violating Fonseka's civil rights and the country's constitution.

The ICC issued arrest warrants [JURIST report] for Harun and Kushayb in 2007 on 51 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Kushayb was apprehended and held pending trial, but he appealed [JURIST reports] and was released by the Sudanese government later that year when the government announced that the ICC did not have jurisdiction over Sudanese citizens. Last month, Ocampo referred Sudan to the Security Council [JURIST report] for lack of cooperation in the pursuit of Harun and Kushayb. ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I released a decision [text, PDF] asking the Security Council to take any steps it deems appropriate to compel Sudan to comply with its obligation under Security Council Resolution 1593 [text, PDF], which provides that "the Government of Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution.'' Since the ICC concluded that it has exhausted all its resources, the responsibility will now be shifted to the Security Council to take appropriate action. Sudan, which is not a permanent member of the ICC under the Rome Statute [text], refuses to recognize the court's jurisdiction, stating that "the International Criminal Court has no place in this crisis at all."

The payload data has never been used in any Google product or service, nor do we intend to use it. ... As soon as we became aware of this problem, we grounded our Street View cars and segregated the payload data on our network. We then removed the data from the Google network so that it is inaccessible to anyone other than those responsible for securing the data, and we continue to take steps to safeguard payload data. Collection of WiFi payload data was a mistake. The payload data has never been used in any Google product or service, nor do we intend to use it. ... We believe it does not violate U.S. law to collect payload data from networks that are configured to be openly accessible (i.e., not secured by encryption and thus accessible by any user's device). We emphasize that being lawful and being the right thing to do are two different things, and that collecting payload data was a mistake for which we are profoundly sorry.

Several investigations have recently been launched into Google's unencrypted data collections to determine whether the company's practices have violated privacy laws. Earlier this week, Australia commenced an investigation [JURIST report] into whether Google breached the nation's Telecommunications Interception Act [text], which prevents people from accessing electronic communications other than for authorized purposes. Canada launched an investigation [JURIST report] last week into Google's unsecured Wi-Fi data collection to determine whether Google has violated the country's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [text, PDF], which applies to private organizations that collect, use, or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. Belgium, the UK, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have also asked Google to retain data collected in those respective nations. On Thursday, Google was accused by advocacy group Privacy International (PI) [advocacy website] of criminal intent [JURIST report] for the company's private data collection. PI released its statement in response an independent audit [text, PDF] published by Google on the company's official blog [website]. PI claims that information gathered in the audit proves that Google's interception of unencrypted data was not inadvertent and should lead to prosecution.

As the final rounds of the review conference commenced on Friday, ICC nations had been unable to reach a consensus [JURIST report] on the adoption of the crime of aggression. The crime of aggression is listed under Article 5 of the Rome Statute along with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but the ICC remained unable to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression because the statute did not define the crime or set out jurisdictional conditions. Nations attending the conference were divided on the issue of the amendment's implementation and whether the Security Council should have oversight on the ICC's application of the crime. Earlier this month at the review conference, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp expressed concern [JURIST report] over the potential adoption of the state aggression law by the ICC, claiming that the proposed aggression charge is overly broad and could result in politicized investigations into use of force. He held that "a fundamental principle of legality is that individuals must know whether conduct crosses the line into that which is forbidden before they act and not learn the answer in the crucible of trial." Delegates opposed to the ICC mandate are wary of its impact on the use of force, such as NATO's bombing of Kosovo in the 1990s, Tanzania's invasion of Uganda to overthrow military dictator Idi Amin, or more recently Colombia's raids in Ecuador against Marxist rebels.