The court's decision comes two days after the British government indicated it will issue a new set of guidelines [JURIST report] regarding the use of information obtained via torture. The announcement came as part of the government's defense against a lawsuit filed by the human rights group Reprieve [advocacy website], which has been seeking a review of the country's torture policy. Similar claims of complicity were made against the government by a new report [materials] released Monday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. Last month, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary William Hague [official profile] said that the UK will launch an investigation [JURIST report] into allegations that overseas UK operatives were complicit in torture. Hague stated that the new coalition government will initiate a judge-led inquiry into the allegations, but no details were outlined in the legislative program [text, PDF] published by Prime Minister David Cameron [official profile].

The court can exercise discretion wisely, but to do so it must balance competing constitutional values, not just apply a favored ideology. And the court can bring truly justice, but only if it approaches each case without predisposition or bias. Unfortunately, the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court has departed from those great institutional traditions. Precedents, whether of old or recent vintage, have been discarded at a startling rate. Statutes passed by Congress have been tossed aside with little hesitation, and constitutional questions of enormous import have been taken up hastily and needlessly.

Even as we understand the absolute necessity for protection of speakers from libel suits, from defamation suits, we should also appreciate that people who did nothing to ask for trouble can be greatly harmed when something goes around the Internet, and everybody believes something false about a person...That's a real harm, and the legal system should not pretend that it's not.

Kagan's confirmation hearings began Monday [JURIST report] with Democratic and Republican senators offering contrasting interpretations of Kagan's judicial philosophy and lack of experience on the bench. On Tuesday, Kagan defended her decision to restrict military recruiter access [JURIST report] to Harvard Law School [academic website] while she was dean. Obama nominated Kagan [JURIST report] in May to replace Justice John Paul Stevens [official profile; JURIST news archive], who announced his retirement [JURIST report] in April. Kagan became the first woman confirmed as Solicitor General [JURIST report] in 2009.

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. Pro-life activists actively protested the new law and had previously encouraged [JURIST reports] the PP to make good on a promise to seek the bill's repeal. 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.

Observers have accused the Iranian government of conducting the trial as a mere political move. In January, an Iranian parliamentary inquiry found [JURIST report] that Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi was responsible for the deaths. The report alleged that Mortazavi, the prosecutor responsible for overseeing the Kahrizak prison, ordered that the prisoners be transferred to Kahrizak, where they were tortured and beaten to death. The US government and EU issued a joint statement [JURIST report] in February condemning the human rights violations following the presidential election. In December, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] labeled [JURIST report] the human rights violations committed by the Iranian government following the election among the worst of the past 20 years.

In short, the sponsors of the amendment wanted to protect the current definition and legal status of marriage, and to ensure that the requirements in the first sentence could not be rendered illusory by later legislative or court action recognizing or creating identical or substantially similar legal statuses. The purpose of the marriage amendment, then, was to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman. Both propositions in the amendment tend to effect or carry out this general purpose.

Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage. In March, the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] denied an emergency appeal to prevent Washington DC's same-sex marriage law from taking effect. Chief Justice John Roberts, acting as circuit justice for the DC area, denied [JURIST report] an application [text, PDF] requesting a stay pending further review of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 [text, PDF]. With that, DC became the sixth US jurisdiction to allow for same-sex marriages, joining Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts [JURIST reports]. Supporters had looked to Wisconsin to be a leader in the gay rights movement before the state passed the marriage ban [JURIST report] in 2006, with more than 59 percent of the state vote.

The panel has been asked to investigate the events that took place in the early hours of May 31, when Israeli forces raided six ships attempting to deliver more than 10,000 tons of aid to the Palestinian territory of Gaza. The raid left numerous wounded and resulted in the shooting deaths of nine pro-Palestine activists: eight Turks and one American. Earlier this month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] reiterated the importance of an international component [JURIST report] in the investigation into the raid. Ban's original proposal to establish an investigatory panel comprised of representatives from Israel, Turkey, and other unnamed countries, was rejected by Israeli officials [JURIST report]. Israeli officials have insisted that Israel has the ability and the right to resolve matters through an internal investigation and does not require international oversight. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [official website] has also launched an internal investigation [JURIST report] into the flotilla attack. The investigatory unit will study the outcomes of the incident, "establish lessons" and present its findings by July 4.

While steps can be taken, by training and by providing suitable armour, to give our troops some measure of protection against these hostile attacks, that protection can never be complete. Deaths and injuries are inevitable. ... To suggest that these deaths and injuries can always, or even usually be seen as the result of some failure to protect the soldiers ... is to depreciate the bravery of the men and women who face these dangers.

Private Jason Smith, a member of the Territorial Army since 1992, was mobilized for service in Iraq in June 2003. After spending a short time in Kuwait to become acclimated with the weather, he was sent to a Camp Abu Naji, a UK base in Iraq. He was then sent to an athletics stadium approximately seven miles from the base. On August 9, Smith reported he was feeling sick to his commanding officers, complaining of the heat, which exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit during the daytime in the shade. Over the next few days he was employed in various duties off the base. On the evening of August 13, Smith collapsed at the stadium and died of heat stroke. An investigation into Smith's death found that it was caused by a serious failure to address the difficulty he had in adjusting to the climate. Smith's mother than commenced proceedings to open a new investigation into human rights abuses under the ECHR.

Earlier this month, the UNODC released a report [text, PDF; press release] describing the globalization of organized crime [JURIST news archive] and its threat to international security [JURIST report]. The report specifically addressed human trafficking and its effect on international criminal activities. Also this month, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] released its annual report [text, PDF; JURIST report] on human trafficking conditions across the globe. It was the tenth annual report on human trafficking by the DOS, following reports in 2009 [JURIST report], 2008 [materials], 2007 and 2006 [JURIST reports]. In January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled that sex trafficking violates conventions [JURIST report] against slavery and forced labor. Last October, the US and the EU announced an international criminal treaty [JURIST report] that will greatly increase cooperation between the two governments in fighting the trafficking of humans and the sale of illegal drugs.

Several state and local governments have been passing immigration legislation, as the federal government has been unable to create a solution on the national level. Last week, the voters of Fremont, Nebraska [official website] passed [JURIST report] an ordinance [No 5165 text, PDF] banning the hiring, harboring or renting property to illegal immigrants. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska [advocacy website] has promised to challenge the ordinance in court [press release], describing the law as "un-American and unconstitutional" and arguing that the ordinance will "cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens." In April, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] signed into law [JURIST report] a controversial bill [SB1070 materials] that would require any individual suspected of being an illegal immigrant to present valid identification to law enforcement officials. Brewer is currently facing federal lawsuits filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, several Tuscon police officers and a class action [JURIST reports] led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report] and plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. The Mexican government has also spoken out against the law and filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST reports] last week in support of the ACLU lawsuit.

Similar concerns over civil liberties violations arose last fall, following the Pittsburgh G-20 summit [JURIST news archive]. In December, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) [official website] and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy websites] announced they were extending and continuing a lawsuit [JURIST report] against the City of Pittsburgh for allegedly violating the rights of two protest groups during the September summit. According to the amended complaint, Pittsburgh police officers repeatedly violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment [text] rights of Seeds of Peace and Three Rivers Climate Convergence (3RCC) [advocacy websites]. The ACLU-PA and CCR originally filed the lawsuit [JURIST report] in September. Both groups claimed that police searched and seized members of the groups and their property and that police retaliated against members for exercising their right to free speech. Seeds of Peace also claimed that police detained their bus without cause, illegally searched and impounded the bus and conducted a warrantless raid on the property on which the bus was being stored. Pittsburgh has also been criticized for its handling of other protesters. The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) [advocacy website] questioned [JURIST report] the methods used by police during protests in the Lawrenceville and Oakland [JURIST reports] sections of Pittsburgh and also noted that individual officers lacked visible identification, frustrating the work of NLG and ACLU legal observers.

First, the personal jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to "natural persons", which, read in the context and in light of the Statute's object and purpose, should be understood in its ordinary meaning, i.e., the living. Second, Article 25 of the Statute clearly states that "[t]he Appeals Chamber shall hear appeals from persons convicted by the Trial Chambers or from the Prosecutor", thus leaving no room for other persons interested in the outcome of the appeal. Third, neither the Statute nor the Rules allow for Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to any procedures initiated by the convicted person's heirs or victims. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that this clearly demonstrates that the Tribunal's jurisdiction ... is limited to living accused or convicted persons.

Delic was one of the highest-ranking Bosnian military leaders to stand trial before the tribunal for his actions in the 1992-1994 Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive]. After he was charged in early 2005, Delic surrendered to the court and pleaded not guilty [JURIST reports]. He was convicted on three counts of murder and cruel treatment in 2008 and sentenced to three years in prison. Delic was awaiting a decision from the ICTY on his appeal of the conviction when he died of cancer in April.

Vioxx has been the subject of stream of litigation since Merck pulled it from the market in September 2004 after a study showed that it could double the risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for more than 18 months. State and federal lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana, California, New Jersey and Texas [JURIST reports]. In April, the US Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a securities fraud claim filed against Vioxx had not passed its statute of limitations and could proceed. In September 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed [JURIST report] a class action lawsuit filed against Merck, reversing a lower court's decision to grant nationwide class certification in the case. In November 2007, Merck said that it had agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle all pending lawsuits [JURIST report] regarding its marketing and distribution of Vioxx.

In our country, under our Constitution, the authorities aren't allowed to spy on you unless they have specific and individual suspicion that you are doing something illegal. Unfortunately, law enforcement in our country seems to be reverting to certain old, bad behaviors when it comes to political surveillance. ... Americans have been put under surveillance or harassed by the police just for deciding to organize, march, protest, espouse unusual viewpoints and engage in normal, innocuous behaviors...

The report cited incidents of cross-country surveillance where undercover police officers infiltrated groups that were planning to attend protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC). Earlier this month, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled that the city of New York could withhold documents related to their surveillance practices [JURIST report] that led to the arrest of 1,800 protesters during the convention. The court found that the documents needed to remain confidential because their release could compromise future surveillance efforts.