[I]n my judgment, the appropriate remedy in all these cases is one of quashing ab initio ... I agree with the submission made on behalf of the controlees that, if the appropriate remedy were merely revocation, there is a risk that a breach of Convention rights would go substantially unremedied ... I would dismiss the appeal of the Secretary of State in AF and AE.

In June, the UK Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a control order requiring an anonymous appellant to live 150 miles away from his family and operated under a 16-hour curfew violated his rights under the ECHR. Such orders were created by the Prevention of Terrorism ACT of 2005 (PTA) [text], which allows the British government to conduct surveillance and impose house arrest on suspects where there does not exist enough evidence to prosecute. The orders can also be used to forbid the use of mobile phones and the Internet. The system set up under PTA has been criticized by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] for what the human rights organization describes as criminal sanctions without trial [press release] that are not compatible with the principles of human rights. AI has called for the repeal of the PTA and the abandonment of control orders, which it has described as "fundamentally flawed." In September, then-Home Secretary Alan Johnson [BBC profile] said that the government would undertake a review [JURIST report] of the system. Johnson issued a ministerial statement [text] saying that his "current assessment is ... that the control order regime remains viable," but that he would "be keeping this assessment under review." In October 2007, the UK Law Lords ruled in a series of decisions that the government can continue to impose control orders [JURIST report] on terror suspects in lieu of detention, but said that some elements of the orders violate human rights.

The DOJ filed its complaint earlier this month, arguing that the Constitution and federal law "do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country." The DOJ also claims that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters and that the enforcement of the Arizona law is counterproductive to the national immigration policy and will interfere with foreign relations with Mexico and other countries. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional and allegedly legalizing racial profiling. Also in July, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. In the brief filed in support of the US, the ABA also argues that the Arizona law would interfere with law enforcement officers' public safety functions and infringe on both citizens' and noncitizens' constitutional rights by placing upon them the burden of proving their citizenship.

Last month, a Pakistani court reimposed a ban on YouTube [JURIST report] after content deemed offensive to Muslims resurfaced on the website when a previous ban was lifted in May. The court ordered the ban after evidence of content on the websites regarding the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran was presented at a hearing. Last year, Bangladeshi officials lifted a ban on YouTube [JURIST report] that had been imposed after a recording was posted in which Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina [official profile, BBC profile] is criticized by army officers over how she handled the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) [official website] mutiny [BBC backgrounder] in late February 2009. In 2008, the Chinese government blocked Internet users [JURIST report] in the country from accessing YouTube after videos of a government crackdown on Tibetan protesters challenging Chinese rule were posted on the site.

In March, a German court sentenced former Nazi SS member Heinrich Boere to life in prison for the 1944 murders [JURIST report] of three Dutch civilians. Boere was sentenced to death in absentia by a Dutch court in 1949, but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison. Boere never served his sentence, as one German court refused to extradite him because of the probability that he was a German national, and another refused the request that he serve his sentence in a German jail due to the likelihood the trial was unfair because Boere was not present for the proceedings. Boere plans to appeal the court's decision and will not begin serving his sentence until the appellate process is finished. In August, a German district court sentenced former Nazi army officer Josef Scheungraber to life in prison [JURIST report] for the 1944 reprisal killing of 10 Italian civilians. Scheungraber was convicted on 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder for ordering soldiers to blow up a barn in Falzano di Cortona, Tuscany, after forcing 11 civilians inside.

Chinese law enforcement practices have fallen under fire in recent months as police have been accused of brutality and corruption. Earlier this month, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the Chinese government to launch an independent investigation into law enforcement conduct during the July 2009 Xinjiang riots [JURIST news archive], accusing police of executing arbitrary arrests and employing excessive force. Last October, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported [JURIST report] that more than 40 Uighur Muslims [JURIST news archive] had disappeared while in the custody of Chinese authorities after large-scale police sweeps. Residents of the region claim that the majority of the deaths were at the hands of Chinese authorities, but Chinese state media has reported that most of the deaths were due to protesters. The Chinese government has admitted that police were responsible for 12 of the deaths [JURIST report].

Japan continues to go against the international trend toward abolition and mete out this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. A day that should have marked one year without executions has instead seen Japan return to carrying out state-sponsored killings. ... A working group to discuss the death penalty is not enough. There needs to be an open and public debate and an immediate moratorium on executions while the discussion takes place.

In recent years, Japan has experienced a sharp upswing in both violent crime [BBC report] and the perceived risk of violent crime [Japan Focus study], factors used as justification for increasing the use of capital punishment. In January 2009, the Justice Ministry announced that four death row inmates were executed [JURIST report], despite international pressure to end the practice. In 2008, the ministry carried out the execution of 15 prisoners, including three inmates in June [JURIST report], as well as an additional two in October. AI issued a statement urging Japan to stop executions [press release] after the hanging of four men in April 2009. In February 2009, a group of parliamentarians proposed a four-year moratorium on the practice [JURIST report]. In November 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee urged Japan to take steps to abolish the death penalty [JURIST report]. In August 2007, Japan's national bar association called for a moratorium on the death penalty [JURIST report] until new safeguards are enacted to prevent wrongful executions.

Two lawsuits were filed last week seeking injunctive relief against the ordinance, which was passed by city voters in a referendum [JURIST reports] last month. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy websites] filed their lawsuits in the US District Court for the District of Nebraska [official website]. In its lawsuit [complaint, PDF], the ACLU challenged the law based on the Equal Protection and Supremacy [Cornell LII backgrounder] clauses of the US Constitution [text]. MALDEF's lawsuit [complaint, PDF] makes nearly identical arguments, adding that the ordinance interferes with a person's right to enter into and enforce contracts under federal law [42 USC § 1981 text] and violates Article 11 of the Nebraska Constitution [text] because the Fremont municipal government has not been empowered by the Nebraska Legislature [official website] to enforce immigration law. Additionally, MALDEF cites five cases of similar local laws that were struck down by federal and state courts, including a nearly identical law struck down [JURIST report] by a federal district court in Texas. The ACLU is also challenging the Arizona immigration law [JURIST report] on similar grounds.

[I]s not an effort to promote transparency. It is not a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. ... This bill is a partisan effort, pure and simple, drafted behind closed doors by current and former Democrat campaign committee leaders, ... aimed at ... protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of November. The supporters of this bill say it's about transparency. To that, I say it's transparent alright. It's a transparent effort to rig the fall elections. And they're so intent on their goal that they're willing to launch an all-out assault on the First Amendment in order to get there.

Last week, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) [official website] introduced an amended version of the campaign finance bill [JURIST report] in order to gain support from moderate Republicans in the hope of increasing the chance of the bill's passage. The new version of the bill removed several provisions included in the version passed by the House of Representatives [JURIST report] last month, including exemptions in the bill that may benefit unions over corporations and requiring organizations funding political advertising in states where they do not do business to disclose the location of the organization. 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 § 203 of the BCRA, 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 on First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] grounds.

The Oil for Food Program was intended to provide humanitarian relief to the Iraqi population, then subject to comprehensive international trade sanctions. The Program allowed the Iraqi government to purchase necessary humanitarian goods, but required that all purchases be made through a UN-controlled escrow account. The kickbacks paid in connection with all four subsidiaries' Oil for Food contracts had the effect of diverting funds out of the escrow account and...into an Iraqi slush fund.

Several companies and individuals have been accused of participating in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. In April, a Paris judge charged [JURIST report] French oil company Total [corporate website] with bribery and complicity in connection with the scandal. According to the 2005 Volcker report, published by a UN-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee [official website] investigating corruption in the oil-for-food program, oil companies like Total allegedly paid Iraqi officials over $1.5 billion in illegal kickbacks [materials] in exchange for being selected as oil purchasers. Over the last three years, oil company Chevron [corporate website] also paid a large settlement to the SEC concerning misuse of the program, and two Texan oil barons, David Chalmers and Oscar Wyatt Jr. [JURIST reports], were sentenced to prison for their roles in the scandal. The oil-for-food program allowed the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive], under UN sanctions in the wake of the first Gulf War, to sell limited stocks of oil in return for foodstuffs and other humanitarian supplies.

Russian courts have recently taken action against neo-Nazi groups in the country. In April, the Moscow City Court ruled that the Slavic Union (SS) violated Russia's extremism laws, banning the organization [JURIST report]. The SS, whose initials are the same as the Nazi paramilitary, was one of Russia's largest neo-Nazi organizations. City prosecutors initiated the action, accusing the group of promoting nationalistic supremacy similar to the ideology of Nazi Germany. Earlier in April, a Moscow City Court judge known for presiding over cases involving neo-Nazi groups was killed [JURIST report] while leaving his apartment. Russia is currently struggling to limit hate crimes, which decreased in 2009 [JURIST report] according to the SOVA Center [advocacy website].