The circuit court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on the case in September after the district court had originally ordered Slahi's release in March. The 9/11 commission report said that Slahi was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks [Miami Herald report], and he was once considered a key al Qaeda leader with prosecutors seeking the death penalty against him. A prominent government prosecutor stepped down from the case [PBS interview] because he did not support the alleged abusive treatment used against Slahi, which was investigated in a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] report [text, PDF].

the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts are not required to obtain a state court's construction of a state statute or ordinance before deciding a federal constitutional challenge to the law and should not certify such question unless the law is fairly susceptible to a narrowing construction. Also, the Court has held that it is "manifestly inappropriate to certify a question in a case where ... there is no uncertain question of state law whose resolution might affect the pending federal claim."

In September, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld [opinion, PDF] a lower court's ruling that a similar law passed by the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, was preempted by federal law [JURIST report]. Immigration issues have come to the fore in the US since the passage of Arizona's controversial SB 1070 [JURIST news archive]. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on the law's constitutionality. The law was passed because of concerns that federal officials were not taking the issue seriously, but the US Department of Homeland Security announced recently that the US deported a record number of illegal immigrants [JURIST report] in 2010.

Earlier this week, a Yemeni court sentenced 10 Somali Pirates [JURIST report] to five years in prison for attacking Yemeni fishing boats. The international community has been supporting actions taken against maritime piracy, but the UN has recently had to call for nations to assist Kenya in conducting piracy trials [JURIST report]. In June, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) announced [JURIST report] that it would spend more than USD $9.3 million to fund courts that prosecute suspected Somali pirates. This action came in response to the Kenyan government's announcement in April that it would no longer accept [JURIST report] Somali pirate cases due to its overburdened legal system. The month of April also saw the UN Security Council approve a resolution [JURIST report] calling on member states to criminalize piracy under their domestic laws as well as an announcement from the UN that a trust fund established to combat piracy will be funding five projects [UN News Centre report] in an effort to help Somalia and its neighbors reduce acts of piracy committed in nearby bodies of water.

The US submitted its national report [JURIST report] to the UNHRC in August, and the report included mention of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070 [JURIST news archive]. The inclusion of that law angered Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who later wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requesting the deletion [JURIST report] of that section of the report. The US was elected to the UNHRC [JURIST report] in May 2009. In anticipation of that election and in an effort to secure a seat on the council, the US released a document [JURIST report] in April of that year asserting its commitment to human rights, marking a reversal of the prior administration's stance towards the body. The UNHRC was created [JURIST report] in 2006, at which time the Bush administration declined to seek a Council seat or participate in its proceedings due to a perceived anti-Israeli sentiment.

In September, an MOD report found that the UK's treatment of detainees complies with domestic and international law [JURIST report]. In July, UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced that he would create a panel [JURIST report] to investigate claims that British government agents were complicit in the torture of terrorism suspects held overseas. The investigation stems from a civil action, brought by 12 ex-detainees who allege that British agents participated in their abuse while they were held in prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and other countries. The UK will ask them to drop their lawsuits in exchange for possible compensation and a promise that the impending inquiry will fully investigate their claims. In June, the UK government indicated that it will issue a new set of regulations regarding the use of information obtained via torture [JURIST report] as claims of complicity in torture were made against the government in a Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] report [materials] released the same day.

Last month, representatives from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the ICTR appeared before the UN General Assembly to request additional financial resources [JURIST report] and institutional support on behalf of the various war crimes tribunals. In June, the ICTR transferred [JURIST report] the cases of 25 suspects to Rwandan authorities. The suspects, who have been investigated but not yet indicted by the ICTR, are believed to be in hiding abroad. The transfers are a part of the strategy intended to finish [completion strategy text, PDF] the court's trial work by 2011. Rwandan Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga told the UN Security Council last year that the decisions by the ICTR not to transfer pending cases to Rwandan jurisdiction, including genocide suspects Jean-Baptiste Gatete and Yussuf Munyakazi [case materials] undermines judicial reforms [JURIST report] and hinders national reconciliation.

The law was sponsored by state Representative Rex Duncan (R) [official website], who described it as a preemptive strike [Daily Mail report] against the use of Islamic law in Oklahoma. The necessity of the amendment has been questioned [CNN report] due to the fact that the use of Islamic law in US courts would likely violate the First Amendment prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] the statute in 2008 on the basis that it is a licensing law, which exempts it from being preempted by federal law. The court also concluded that the LAWA reflects the "rising frustration with the United States Congress's failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform," and did not overstep the state's authority to regulate immigration. Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on Arizona's more recent controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive]. The state's representatives argued that Arizona is on the front line of human and drug trafficking from Mexico, and the law is meant to assist with the enforcement and implementation of federal immigration law when the federal government is either "unable or unwilling to solve the problem. The federal government cautioned that allowing states to create immigration policy could create a patchwork system and potentially harm foreign relations.

In 2008, Colom vetoed a similar bill [JURIST report]] that would have restored the country's death penalty. Decree 06-2008 [AI backgrounder] would also have given Colom the power to decide whether to grant clemency and commute the sentences of the 34 inmates currently on death row to 50 years in prison, or to order their executions to take place. In vetoing the measure Colom said cases in the US showed that the death penalty did not deter crime and that strengthening security institutions was the best way to fight crime in Guatemala. Last month, protesters across the globe marked the 8th World Day against the Death Penalty [JURIST report], specifically urging the US, Iran and China to end the death penalty.