Civilian deaths caused by US soldiers have also become an issue in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, the US Army announced that a US soldier accused of killing three Afghan civilians in an unprovoked rogue assault earlier this year will face a court-martial [JURIST reports] for premeditated murder. Specialist Jeremy Morlock of Joint Base Lewis McChord [official website] is one of five soldiers accused of murdering the civilians in separate incidents between January and May in Kandahar province. The Army announced in May that its Criminal Investigation Command was opening an investigation [JURIST report] into the civilian deaths in Kandahar. The charges are the latest in a number of incidents involving US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the problem with torture: it can become natural. There are situations where everyone goes crazy and the normal values of human beings stand on their heads. It is very important to fight those situations. ... We need to react very strongly against this attempt to get accustomed to torture. ... This nonsense of ticking bombs, extraordinary situations as an excuse for torture. I'm surprised that people still talk about that. It happens less now than some years ago, and I think we need to build momentum against it. ... We need to act so that we elevate education of people so that they go beyond the passive reactions when there are serious crimes committed.

In June, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] warned people and nations [JURIST report] that practice torture that they cannot escape the reach of justice. Commemorating the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Pillay noted that 45 UN member states have not ratified the Convention and that many states party continue to practice torture. Pillay also expressed concern over democracies that generally abide by the rule of law but have maintained amnesties that prevent torturers from being brought to justice. Earlier that month, UN rights experts called on the UN Human Rights Council [official website] to investigate findings [JURIST report] from a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] released earlier this year detailing the secret imprisonment of terrorism [JURIST news archives] suspects by 66 countries, including the US, Ethiopia, Romania and Pakistan.

This ruling ... is evidence that the authorities consider violence against women and children to be completely acceptable. Domestic violence should never be tolerated under any circumstances. These provisions are blatantly demeaning to women and pose serious risks to their well-being. The ... ruling lets stand a law that is degrading, discriminatory, and outright dangerous for women and children. The UAE needs to come to grips with reality of domestic violence, repeal all discriminatory provisions sanctioning violence against women and children, enact laws that criminalize such behavior, and provide appropriate services to victims.

In the last few decades, the UAE has experienced dramatic changes with the influx of many foreigners whose population has recently superseded the native population, challenging many legal traditions influenced by Islamic law. The changes, consistent with those many countries of the Middle East, have furthered human rights [JURIST report] in the areas of employment, education and political participation, especially concerning women, according to a Freedom House [advocacy website] report released in March. Despite this, the report noted that women in these countries still face many obstacles in achieving equality, and, despite the progress, women in the region still have little recourse for domestic violence and face discrimination in employment, education and politics.

The ruling brings UK law in line with other European countries' treatment of pre-nuptial agreements. In March, the European Commission (EC) [official website] proposed reforms [JURIST report] to simplify and clarify international divorce laws. Under the proposal, married couples from different EU countries could choose the country of the divorce, and the various courts would use a common formula to decide which country's law applies when a couple disagrees. The measure, supported by 10 countries [BBC report], was first debated [JURIST report] in January amid concerns [press release] about potential unfairness in cross-border divorces, since the law across the member countries varied significantly.

India has addressed other environmental issues this year. In July, Ramesh apologized [JURIST report] for the government's role in the 2008 disposal of toxic waste from the 1984 Bhopal chemical spill disaster [BBC backgrounder], which he said was done secretly and in an improper manner. Nearly 350 tons of waste were collected following the disaster in which nearly 3,800 people were killed when toxic gas was accidentally released in the middle of the night by a chemical plant owned by a Union Carbide [corporate website] subsidiary company. Upwards of 15,000 others later died from exposure to the gas, and 50,000 were left permanently disabled. The government reportedly removed 40 tons of the waste [AFP report] to Pithampur for disposal, but failed to consider the environmental impact or notify the public about the disposal. In June, a panel of Indian cabinet ministers announced the government would begin the process of cleaning up the disaster site [JURIST report] and would consider increasing compensation for victims of the disaster. The same month, an Indian court handed down the first convictions [JURIST report] related to the toxic spill, sentencing seven men to two years in prison as well as fines for their roles in the disaster.

[T]he evidence at trial showed that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act harms military readiness and unit cohesion, and irreparably injures servicemembers by violating their fundamental rights. The public has an interest in military readiness, unit cohesion, and the preservation of fundamental constitutional rights. While Defendants' interests in preventing the status quo and enforcing its laws are important, these interests are outweighed by the compelling public interest of safeguarding fundamental constitutional rights. The evidence Defendants submitted with this Application has not demonstrated otherwise.

Also on Tuesday, the US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] announced that openly gay men and women are now allowed to sign up [JURIST report] to serve in the in US armed forces. The DOD issued a directive on Friday to all recruiting stations pursuant to which all openly gay men and women may serve, although their status could change if the district court decision is overruled. Last month, Philips declared the policy unconstitutional [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. Following the ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] asked the court not to enforce its decision [JURIST report], arguing that the ruling was overbroad and that the military should be permitted time to implement a non-judicial solution to the issue. Since its enactment in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of DADT.

[C]ombining all of this evidence and corroborated intelligence, the mosaic that emerges unmistakably supports the conclusion that it is more likely than not that petitioner Obaydullah was in fact a member of an al Qaeda bomb cell committed to the destruction of US and Allied forces. As such, he is lawfully detainable under the [Authorization for Use of Military Force] (AUMF) [text, PDF].

In January, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] decided on a military prosecution [JURIST report] for Obaidullah. The case was passed over to the Pentagon, which must now decide whether to formally try Obaidullah in a military commission [JURIST news archive]. Obaidullah is the sixth Guantanamo detainee to have his case referred for military trial since US president Barack Obama ordered the closing [JURIST report] of the facility and a review of all detainees' cases in January 2009. In November 2009, the DOJ designated five other cases for military trials, including that of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr [JURIST report]. Also in November, Holder announced [JURIST report] that five accused 9/11 [JURIST news archive] conspirators would be tried in US federal court.

In addition to France, several other countries have been altering their policies regarding custodial interrogations. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada [official website] ruled [judgment text] that Canadians do not have the right to have counsel [JURIST report] present during custodial interrogations. In May, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] announced that the Obama administration plans to ask Congress to enact legislation allowing interrogators [JURIST report] to question terror suspects for a longer period of time than currently allowed before informing them of their constitutional rights to remain silent and be represented by an attorney. Earlier that month, a group of US lawmakers introduced a bill that would strip US citizenship rights [JURIST report], including the right to a lawyer, from those suspected of engaging in terrorism. US lawmakers also introduced a bill in March that would require the military interrogation and trial [JURIST report] of those taken into US custody who are suspected of links to terrorism. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 was introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) [official websites] and would require that all people detained by US authorities, both domestically and internationally, who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners or of providing material support for those who do, would be placed in military custody for interrogation and a final status determination made by the president, attorney general and defense secretary.

Since its enactment in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of DADT. Last month, a federal judge for the US District for the Western District of Washington [official website] ordered [JURIST report] that a US Air Force officer be reinstated after being previous discharged under DADT. Also in September, the Senate [official website] rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. In May, the House of Representatives [official website] and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.