DHS' immigration enforcement programs have allowed arrests for minor charges, such as driving without a license and petty theft, amounting to no more than a subway ride, to be the gateway for immigration enforcement. ... Once noncitizens are channeled into the immigration enforcement system - regardless of guilt or innocence, severity of the offense or how long ago it occurred, rehabilitation or ties to the community - they face a detention and deportation system with few due process protections. DHS has a bad track record of failing to ensure that immigration enforcement authority is not granted to local agencies with a history of racial profiling or racially disparate enforcement. Similarly, even as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announces measures to prioritize its use of government resources, the agency has no meaningful screening or oversight in place to ensure that it is not relying on the criminal arrest authority of local enforcement agencies with a history of misconduct.

The role of local law enforcement in US immigration law has been a point of debate in recent months, since the passage [JURIST report] of an Arizona immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive], which seeks to create state law authority to enforce federal immigration law, prompting numerous lawsuits assailing its constitutionality. Last month, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) filed the state's opening brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction issued in July [JURIST report] blocking the law from taking full effect. The injunction came at the request of the DOJ, enjoining provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling [JURIST op-ed].

A Bosnian state court refused to extradite Glavas [JURIST report] to Croatia to serve a sentence for war crimes in 2009. Glavas, who holds dual Bosnian and Croatian citizenship, fled to Bosnia to avoid serving his sentence. Shortly after fleeing Croatia in an effort to avoid the sentence, Glavas was arrested on an Interpol warrant in Bosnia. In 2008, Glavas was stripped of his parliamentary immunity [JURIST report] so that lawyers could proceed with his prosecution in Croatia. Glavas is a former prominent member of the ruling Croatian Democratic Union [party website, in Croatian], and was re-elected [JURIST report] to office under the new parliament during the Croatia's November 2007 elections. Glavas staged a 40-day hunger strike in 2006 when he was detained [JURIST report] after the criminal investigation against him initially opened.

Judge ML Tahiliyani, specially appointed [PTI report] in January 2009 to preside over the trial of three suspects detained after the attacks, heard closing arguments [JURIST report] in the case in March. In January, Tahiliyani denied [JURIST report] Kasab's request for an international trial. Kasab claimed that he would not receive a fair trial in India. In December, Kasab withdrew his confession [JURIST report], claiming he was tortured and framed by police. Kasab originally pleaded not guilty last year, but interrupted his trial to confess and change his plea to guilty [JURIST reports] in July. Tahiliyani continued the trial [JURIST report] despite Kasab's confession, ruling that it was incomplete but should be entered into the record.

Earlier this year, the Supreme People's Court of China [official website, in Chinese] issued new guidelines for limiting capital punishment [JURIST report] in Chinese courts. The guidelines instruct courts to issue the death penalty only to those who commit "extremely serious" crimes. However, the guidelines also state that reprieves should be issued in certain cases as allowed by law. The consistent use of the death penalty in China has been met with significant criticism from anti-death penalty advocates. Anti-death penalty group Hands Off Cain [advocacy website] has said that China, Iran and Iraq account for more death penalties [advocacy report] than any other country. According to the group, in 2009, China executed about 5,000 people, or 88 percent of the world's total.

Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Tuesday urged EU members to stop forcibly deporting [JURIST report] Roma migrants to Kosovo. AI believes that Roma, as well as other ethnic minority groups, could face persecution or violence upon their return. Earlier this month, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Viviane Reding [official profile] threatened legal action [JURIST report] against France for its deportation of Roma, calling the initiative "a disgrace." Also this month, more than 100,000 people in 130 cities across France protested the security policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French], including his decision to deport [JURIST reports] the illegal Roma. However, such policies [JURIST comment] are not new for France. In August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] unveiled a review [JURIST report] of France's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [text]. The report raised questions about draft legislation that would strip naturalized citizens of citizenship for committing certain crimes and the decision to dismantle 300 unauthorized Roma encampments.

The ICTY has been active in the region's war crimes trials, including the genocide trial of Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive], which the ICTY announced earlier this month may take another four years [JURIST report]. The same week, current and former international prosecutors signed the fourth Chautauqua Declaration [text, PDF] praising recent advances in international law and urging countries to continue supporting the international courts [JURIST report] in order to maintain the spirit of the Nuremburg Principles [text]. The prosecutors, who have worked with the ICTY, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official websites], as well as the International Military Tribunals, called for continued support and funding of the tribunals and courts as they continue working to maintain the rule of law. They urged countries to fulfill their obligations under international law by investigating and prosecuting, or transferring to the appropriate international court, suspects who violate international criminal law, including sitting heads of state.

Iceland was hit hard [BBC backgrounder] by the financial crisis [JURIST news archive] that emanated from securities related to the US mortgage market. When Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir [corporate websites] were taken over by the Icelandic government in 2008, they were holding debt equal to more than 900 percent [AFP report] of Iceland's gross domestic product, causing the country's economy to collapse and the government to rely on loans [IMF materials] from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [official website] to meet its obligations. The country began considering [JURIST report] whether to seek EU accession [criteria materials] last year, with Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir [official profile] arguing that adopting the Euro would help stabilize the country's economy. In 2008, the UK used anti-terrorism laws to freeze $4 billion [JURIST report] in assets held by Landsbanki after its takeover by the Icelandic government.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration appealed [JURIST report] the injunction, arguing that Lamberth's ruling was overbroad, endangering an array of research across multiple programs and centers while only serving a very attenuated economic interest of the plaintiffs in the case. Last year, President Barack Obama signed an executive order [JURIST report] permitting federal funding for some forms of embryonic stem cell research. Despite the executive order, Lamberth held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail based on existing law. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S 5 materials] that was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos.

[JURIST] The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (OSCJ) [official website] on Tuesday struck down [opinion, PDF] several provisions of Canada's anti-prostitution laws, citing the danger they generate for sex workers. Invalidated were provisions of § 210, § 212 and § 213 of the Canadian Criminal Code [texts], which proscribe the keeping of a "common bawdy house," engaging in communications for the purpose of soliciting sex and living "on the avails" of the sex trade. Justice Susan Himel said that those provisions were not "in accord with the principles of fundamental justice" and asked the Canadian parliament to draft new provisions to effectuate constitutional regulations:

These laws ... force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ... In my view [until Parliament can enact new legislation] these unconstitutional provisions should be of no force ... particularly given the seriousness of the Charter violations. ... I recognize that a consequence of this decision may be that unlicensed brothels may be operated, and in a way that may not be in the public interest.

Although prostitution is legal in Canada, virtually all of the acts ancillary to exchanging sex for money are not. In 2007, the SPOC initiated an application with the OSCJ [JURIST report] challenging the three provisions overturned in Tuesday's ruling on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the Charter. The challenge came on the heels of the trial of Robert Pickton [CBC case backgrounder], who was accused of murdering 26 women [indictment text], mostly prostitutes, in the Vancouver area in the 1990s. Pickton was convicted of six counts of murder [Globe and Mail report] in late 2007.