In May, a lawyer from the Spanish National Court Office of the Prosecutor petitioned [JURIST report] judge Ismael Moreno to issue arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped El-Masri. The Office of the Prosecutor alleged that the court had jurisdiction to issue the warrants because the agents made a stop in Spanish territory using hidden identities without official Spanish government authorization to do so. In 2008, El-Masri petitioned [ACLU materials; JURIST report] the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) [official website] to open an investigation of human rights violations by the US, alleging that he was tortured by the CIA. In 2007, the US Supreme Court rejected [JURIST report] without comment El-Masri's petition for certiorari, ostensibly supporting the Bush administration's contention that allowing El-Masri's federal lawsuit to proceed would require the revelation of state secrets. Also in 2007, the German Justice Ministry said that it would not press a formal request [JURIST report] to extradite the 13 CIA agents suspected of participating in El-Masri's alleged rendition after the Bush administration informed them it would not comply with a such a request, despite a 2006 German investigation that concluded there was no evidence to disprove El-Masri's allegations.

In May, Rwandan authorities arrested [JURIST report] US lawyer and JURIST Forum [website] contributor Peter Erlinder [professional profile; JURIST news archive] on charges of genocide denial while he was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of Umuhoza. Erlinder returned to the US [JURIST report] in June after spending 21 days in a Rwandan prison. In March, an aid to Ingabire who had been convicted in absentia, pleaded guilty to genocide charges [JURIST report] in exchange for a reduced prison sentence of 17 years.

While we would welcome the opportunity to appear before a genuine, credible effort to pursue accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the LLRC falls far short of such an effort. It not only fails to meet basic international standards for independent and impartial inquiries, but it is proceeding against a backdrop of government failure to address impunity and continuing human rights abuses.

In August, Sri Lankan Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa [official profile] appeared before a government-backed commission and defended [JURIST report] the actions of the government during the conflict with the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [JURIST news archive]. The LLRC has been criticized [HRW press release] as a superficial attempt to stave off an international investigation into accusations of widespread and severe human rights abuses by government forces during the war. Gotabaya Rajapaksa appeared before the commission and stated that the government took every effort to avoid civilian casualties. He also indicated that a major focus of the military campaign was providing humanitarian relief to regions of the country that had been under LTTE control. According to the secretary, the military risked higher casualties in order to allow humanitarian convoys into regions where fighting between the military and LTTE was heavy. Gotabaya Rajapaksa also argued that the UN and the international community were to blame for civilian casualties because they failed to ensure that the LTTE released civilians under their control. International pressure on Sri Lanka to conduct a thorough investigation into the civil war continues to mount, despite the government-backed commission.

The pledge is a patriotic exercise, and it is made no less so by the acknowledgment of Texas's religious heritage via the inclusion of the phrase "under God." A pledge can constitutionally acknowledge the existence of, and even value, a religious belief without impermissibly favoring that value or belief, without advancing belief over non-belief, and without coercing participation in a religious exercise. Texas's pledge is of this sort and consequently survives this challenge.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that a teacher-led recitation of the national Pledge of Allegiance [text; JURIST news archive] in public schools does not violate the constitution [JURIST report]. Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow [JURIST news archive] had challenged the practice on behalf of several families, arguing that the phrase "under God" violated the Establishment Clause. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] part of a Florida law [text] that requires students in grades kindergarten through 12 to obtain parental permission before they can be excused from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The court held that another provision requiring all students to stand, even if excused from reciting the Pledge, violates the First Amendment, and is therefore not enforceable.

If, in the specific circumstances, the accused's fair trial right can be honoured only by requiring the witness to remove the niqab, the niqab must be removed if the witness is to testify. I would hope, however, that if the individual rights recognized in the Charter are treated as something more than additional weapons in the lawyer's legal arsenal, the parties will engage in good faith efforts to reconcile competing interests and produce a satisfactory resolution that recognizes and respects both the accused's right to a fair trial and the witness's right to exercise her religious beliefs. I repeat, each case must turn on its own facts. The full facts of this case, as they relate to this issue, are not known.

The issue surrounding Muslim women and their traditional clothing remains controversial in Canada and around the world. Last week, the French Constitutional Council [official website, in French] ruled [JURIST report] that a bill [materials, in French] making it illegal to wear the Islamic burqa, niqab or other full face veils in public, conforms with the Constitution. Earlier this month, a Dutch politician suggested that the Netherlands will ban the burqa [JURIST report] as part of the government's plan to form a minority coalition. In August, Austria's conservative Freedom Party [official website, in German] called for a special vote [JURIST report] on whether to ban face veils and the construction of minarets, two of the most visible symbols of the Islamic faith. Many members of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) [advocacy website] believe [JURIST comment] that Canada should consider banning the wearing conservative Muslim clothing.

The decision is a victory for human rights groups that have been pushing for reform in Indonesia. In June, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the Indonesian government to release secession activists and adhere to international standards of free speech. In April, the Constitutional Court upheld [JURIST report] a controversial anti-blasphemy law enacted in 1965 by the first Indonesian president. The court rejected the legal challenge raised by a coalition of human rights groups and social activists supporting the Wahid Organization, a civil organization that advocates for religious pluralism in Indonesia. In March, the court rejected [JURIST report] a challenge to a controversial anti-pornography law. The law [text, in Bahasa] was purportedly designed to protect younger generations from pornographic and lewd materials. Critics challenged the bill for being too broad, discriminating against women, and targeting aspects of Indonesian tradition and culture, but the court rejected those arguments

These are starting points, and it's possible this group may limit, expand or change its objectives. What's important here is this is a cooperative and coordinated effort by states to address a serious problem. This is not simply about a glitch in the paperwork. It's also about some companies violating the law and many people losing their homes.

In June, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., a subsidiary of Bank of America, reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that the subsidiary collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. Lenders and insurance companies have also recently come under fire for fraud relating to sub-prime mortgage exposure. Last month, a federal judge refused to dismiss a suit [JURIST report] against American International Group (AIG) [corporate website] accusing the company of fraudulent intent to mislead the market and failing to disclose to its shareholders the risks the company was taking in issuing sub-prime mortgages. In August, a federal judge rejected a $75 million settlement [JURIST reports] agreement between Citigroup [corporate website] and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] for misleading investors about the company's exposure to sub-prime mortgage-related assets. Last year, the US Senate [official website] rejected a bill [S 896 materials] that would have aided homeowners in foreclosure [JURIST report] by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages from lenders that had not already offered better terms to their borrowers.