The expertise, independence and impartiality of the members of the mission will be devoted to clarifying the events which took place that day and their legality. We call upon all parties to fully cooperate with the mission and hope that this mission will contribute to peace in the region and justice for the victims.

Earlier this month, an Israeli military probe found insufficient intelligence and planning [JURIST report] in the raid in a report, but also concluded that no punishments were necessary. The report also pointed out the operation relied "excessively on a single course of action ... while no alternative courses of action were prepared for the event of more dangerous scenarios." It went on to commend the actions of the soldiers and their commanders, who exhibited "correct decision making" and justifiably resorted to the use of their firearms. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [official website; BBC profile] established a panel of jurists [JURIST report] to investigate the attack independently from the IDF investigation. The panel has not yet completed its investigation. Israeli forces raided six ships attempting to deliver more than 10,000 tons of aid to Gaza in May. The raid left numerous wounded and resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestine activists - eight Turks and one American.

In April, US Attorney Dennis Pfannenschmidt announced that 28 people have been charged [press release] with soliciting and receiving bribes and gratuities in connection with the scandal. Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll [official website] agreed in January to drop efforts to retry 46 juveniles whose original convictions were overturned [JURIST reports] because they had been issued by a judge indicted in the scandal. This decision ended all efforts at retrying any of the convicted juveniles, who will now have their juvenile records cleared. The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center [advocacy website] applauded the decision [press release], indicating that "justice has finally been attained" for the juveniles. In October, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [official website] overturned about 6,500 convictions handed down by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, but gave prosecutors permission to seek retrial of more than 100 youths who were still under court supervision. Conahan and Ciavarella were indicted in September, following a withdrawal of the guilty pleas they entered [JURIST reports] in February 2009.

Friday's ruling is likely to have broad implications going forward and could play a role in lawsuits filed against the Canadian government following the recent Toronto Group of 20 (G-20) summit [official website]. Rights groups have called for an inquiry into possible rights violations [JURIST report] during the summit, condemning police conduct as "arbitrary and excessive" and criticizing the enactment of a local regulation [O Reg 233/10 text] under the Public Works Protection Act [text], which broadened the scope of police search and seizure powers during the summit. The Ontario Ombudsman [official website] launched an investigation [JURIST report] into the enactment of the regulation earlier this month. Some legal experts have indicated that implementation of the regulation may have been a violation [Toronto Star report] of Charter rights. In light of Friday's ruling, plaintiffs suing the government for a violation of their rights may now be entitled to damages.

In June, the trial of 33 retired and active naval officers began [JURIST report]. The officers were accused of attempting to overthrow the government and establish military rule in another plot planned by a group called Ergenekon [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The group allegedly planned to assassinate prominent members of Turkey's Christian and Jewish minority groups, blame Islamic terrorists for the deaths and use this to delegitimize the AKP. Prosecutors in the case will attempt to link [BBC report] the 33 defendants to a plan to detonate a bomb in an Istanbul museum and the deaths of a Catholic priest, Protestant missionaries and journalist Hrant Dink. The investigations have strained relations between the religiously-inclined government and the secular military, which has been responsible for four coups in the last 50 years. Since the founding of the modern republic in 1923, the military has regarded itself as the defender [Guardian report] of the secular legacy of founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk [Turkish News profile].

[A]n immediate implementation of the order to release [Lubanga] could render the resumption of the trial uncertain, should the Appeals Chamber later find in favour of the Prosecutor's appeals against the Decision to Stay Proceedings and the Impugned Decision. In these circumstances, his release could potentially defeat the purpose of the present appeal and that of the appeal against the Decision to Stay Proceedings, and the granting of suspensive effect is therefore appropriate.

Lubanga is accused of war crimes for allegedly recruiting child soldiers to fight in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2002-2003. His trial began in January 2009 but was halted soon after when one of the child witnesses recanted his testimony [JURIST report] that Lubanga had recruited him for the militia. The prosecution concluded its case [JURIST report] last July after presenting 22 weeks of testimony. Lubanga maintains he is innocent [JURIST report] of the charges against him. He became the first war crimes defendant to appear before the ICC, formed in 2002, after he was taken into custody [JURIST report] in March 2006.

Congress must pass the [act] to protect consumer choice in media services, preserve competition that drives down costs and drives up options, and prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs that the free market Internet economy has created. President Obama's handpicked FCC chairman is attempting to impose unnecessary, antiquated regulations on the Internet in spite of court rulings limiting the FCC's authority, against bipartisan congressional concern over damaging economic consequences, and without any evidence of market failure. The [act] will ensure that the FCC properly uses its rulemaking authority to respond to clear cases of competitive market failure that have proven to harm consumers, and this principle should be the starting point for any debate on Internet governance.

In April, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski [official profile] testified that the agency will move ahead [JURIST report] with its National Broadband Plan despite a recent court ruling [JURIST report] that it lacks the power to enforce net neutrality [JURIST news archive]. Net neutrality, which is unanimously supported [JURIST report] by the FCC's commissioners, is thought by supporters to be essential to the goal of an open flow of information over the Internet regardless of the amount of revenue generated by the information. Telecommunications companies Verizon, AT&T and Comcast [corporate websites] argue that net neutrality would inhibit their ability to effectively manage Internet traffic. Genachowski said that the FCC's actions, as laid out in the plan will, "protect America's global competitiveness and help deliver the extraordinary benefits of broadband to all Americans." The roadmap, he continued, falls within the framework of the Communications Act of 1934 [text, PDF] as amended in 1996. The FCC sent the plan to Congress [JURIST report] for approval in March.

Senate Democrats first introduced their version of the Disclose Act [JURIST report] in April after the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] held hearings [JURIST report] in March on the effects of the Citizens United decision. In Citizens United, the court struck down Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [text, PDF], which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. President Barack Obama sharply criticized [JURIST report] the decision in his State of the Union Address [transcript] in January. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. The decision has caused a deep partisan divide [CNN report] over the topic, with Democratic officials largely opposing the decision, and Republican officials mostly in support.

By excluding Plaintiffs and their families from the kind of comprehensive relationship and family recognition and protection offered to different-sex couples through marriage, the State perpetuates the social stigma and prejudice long-suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in Montana, that they and their relationships are inferior to heterosexual individuals and heterosexual relationships. This exclusion also encourages discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual Montanans, by both public and private actors. As described above, Plaintiffs suffer distinct dignitary harms when they are forced to plead for recognition of their committed relationship, which is automatically granted to different-sex couples who marry.

Earlier this month, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle (R) [official website] vetoed a bill [JURIST report] that would have allowed same-sex civil unions. The American Civil Liberties Union-Hawaii (ACLU-HI) [advocacy website], indicated it would be filing a lawsuit [press release] challenging the state's ban on same-sex civil unions as a violation of the Hawaiian Constitution [text] prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage or recognized same-sex civil unions. Same-sex civil unions that confer the same rights as marriage are currently recognized in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon and Nevada [JURIST reports]. In March, DC legalized same-sex marriage, joining Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts [JURIST reports].

The Senate's failure to pass comprehensive climate legislation will likely revive the debate over the authority of administrative agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] to implement standards aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [JURIST news archive]. Last month, the Senate defeated a resolution [materials; JURIST report] aimed at limiting the authority of the EPA to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act [materials]. Supporters of the resolution argued that Congress, and not the EPA, should have the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] affirmed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act in its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report]. In its ruling, the court held that if the EPA could show a link between greenhouse gas emissions and public health and welfare then the act gives it the power to regulate emissions. The EPA announced last December [JURIST report] that it had found that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to greenhouse gas pollution. The EPA first announced its proposed finding [JURIST report] in April before undertaking a 60-day public comment period.

In January, the Urumqi court sentenced four people to death [JURIST report], eight others to life in prison and one to the death penalty with a two-year reprieve, which is usually commuted to life in prison, for their roles in the riots. To date, at least 26 people have received death sentences. In November, the Chinese government carried out the executions [JURIST report] of nine others convicted in connection with the riots for murder, assault, arson and robbery, after a review by the Supreme People's Court [official website, in Chinese] upheld their sentences. The actions of the Chinese government in the aftermath of the riots were heavily criticized [JURIST report] by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. HRW has stated that the trials of the suspected rioters have been marred by infringements on due process and political considerations. Additionally, HRW reported that more than 40 Uighurs had disappeared [JURIST report] while in the custody of Chinese authorities after large-scale sweeps by police. The Muslim Uighur population is opposed to China's restrictive bans [BBC report] on religious practice and says that the recent influx of Han Chinese has disenfranchised non-Chinese-speaking Uighurs. Violence broke out in July 2009 after Uighurs attacked Han Chinese during protests ignited by an attack at a factory in southern China that left two Uighurs dead.

The recent charges against al-Bashir come after the appeals chamber reversed a prior decision [JURIST report] by the lower chamber denying the prosecutor's request for genocide charges. ICC prosecutors appealed the decision [JURIST report] not to charge al-Bashir with genocide in July 2009. The appeals chamber found that the standard of proof applied by the lower chamber had been too high, and that there only needed to be a showing of reasonable grounds of a genocidal specific intent, a showing that had been met when the first arrest warrant was issued. The warrant issued last week alleges that the Sudanese government, using the national armed forces, police and the Janjaweed militia [BBC backgrounder], targeted ethnic groups for extermination that were believed to be close to armed opposition groups in Darfur as part of a counter-insurgency strategy, and that as commander-in-chief of Sudanese forces, Bashir "played an essential role in [its] coordinati[on]." Al-Bashir has eluded arrest since the issuance of the first warrant. 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.