In Flores-Villar v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether its decision in Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service [opinion text] permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis. Ruben Flores-Villar raised a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge to two former sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1401(a)(7) and 8 USC § 1409 [texts], which impose a five-year residence requirement, after the age of 14, on US citizen fathers, but not on US citizen mothers, before they may transmit citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad to a non-citizen. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the provisions survive intermediate scrutiny. Counsel for Flores-Villar argued:

In Nguyen, the Court approved the imposition of legitimation requirement only upon fathers of non-marital children born abroad. That was based on biological differences between men and women. It provided proof of parentage and proof of an opportunity to make a relationship with the child that adhered in birth as to the mother.

But here, the residential requirements that are at issue here have no biological basis. They set up barriers to the transmission of citizenship by younger fathers, but not younger mothers, and they are based upon gender stereotypes that women, not men, would care -- would care for non-marital children.

Congress in deciding who among the various people born abroad should be made citizens of the United States has to take into account myriad factors that may bear on that question and its judgment. They include importantly Congress's prediction in the case of conferring citizenship at birth, what would be that person's likely connection to the United States. Congress also has to consider the interaction with the laws of other countries where these people may be born. It may take into account equities, potential statelessness or dual nationality. These are complicated questions to which the courts should defer.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions has given a great boost to international humanitarian law. It is unambiguous in banning the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It sets out clear obligations for clearing unexploded ordnance, for educating populations about the risks they face, and for assisting victims. It provides a framework for action in post-conflict scenarios, with strong provisions for international assistance and national planning. ... Until recently, many governments considered cluster munitions indispensable to their military strategies. But they proved themselves open to the arguments of those who said that such policies and practices were out of step with international norms - that they caused indiscriminate harm, and could jeopardize a country's recovery and development.

The CCM was officially opened for signature [JURIST report] in December 2008 at a conference in Oslo, Norway. It has been deemed one of the most significant disarmament and humanitarian treaties in more than a decade since the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1997 that prohibited the use and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. The US is one of the countries that still has not signed the treaty. The US claims that the ban would impede humanitarian efforts [JURIST report] by discouraging cooperation with non-signatories. However, the US did adopt a formal policy [text, PDF] on cluster munitions in June 2008 "intended to minimize the potential unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure."

Each year since the Grand Chamber issued its judgment, Romani children in the Czech Republic have continued to be shunted into sub-standard schools and classes for the mentally disabled. The Committee of Ministers should demand an immediate halt to segregation of Romani children and adoption within six months of the legal and budgetary measures essential to secure equal opportunity.

Other countries have also faced criticism for their treatment of Roma migrants. Last month, the European Commission [official website] announced that it was temporarily postponing the human rights complaint [JURIST report] filed against France over the country's failure to respect the EU's Free Movement Directive of 2004 [Directive 2004/38/EC materials] in its expulsion of Roma. In September, the EC asked the French government to enact legislation guaranteeing that procedural safeguards would be put in place in order to protect EU citizens against "arbitrary, discriminatory or disproportionate decisions." Also in September, Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged EU members to stop forcibly deporting Roma migrants to Kosovo [JURIST report]. In August, the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] expressed concern with the discrimination faced by Roma migrants [JURIST report] in numerous European countries.

The UK Parliament [official website] approved the legislation [JURIST report] in April authorizing the suspension of Internet service for those who repeatedly download copyrighted material illegally. The act also received Royal Assent [text] and is now law. The law calls on ISPs to block download sites, reduce a user's broadband speeds and ultimately shut down a user's Internet access in order to prevent piracy of copyrighted materials. The bill, known as a three-strikes law, imposes stricter penalties on repeat digital offenders than had previously existed, and has received a great deal of public criticism. Despite the controversy over the legislation, MPs who support it say it is a necessary step to protect the creators of digital content. Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced that Britain's intellectual property laws will undergo a review [JURIST report] with an eye towards modernization, in an effort to encourage innovation and small business. Cameron suggested that the law may be reformed in order to allow for increased use of copyright material without the owner's permission. The announcement, seen as an attempt to restore balance after the controversial Digital Economy Act, has been cheered by Internet freedom campaigners and small businesses alike.

Last month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] insisted that the ECCC will decide whether to prosecute [JURIST report] additional Khmer Rouge officers as part of an "international judicial process." Ban called for those responsible to be held accountable [text] for the tragic events that allegedly caused the death of more than two million civilians between 1975 and 1979. In September, the ECCC indicted [JURIST report] four former Khmer Rouge leaders who have been detained since 2007 and are charged with crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and offenses under the Cambodian Criminal Code 1956. The ECCC handed down its first conviction [JURIST report] of a former Khmer Rouge official in July. Kaing Guek Eav [case materials; JURIST news archive], also known as "Duch," was found guilty of crimes against humanity and of violating the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In August, lawyers for Duch filed a notice of appeal [JURIST report] of his conviction, and in September, the prosecution filed its own notice of appeal [JURIST report] seeking to increase Kaing's term of imprisonment.

We are appalled that the authorities have imprisoned a man the Chinese public rightly view as a protector of children, not a criminal. Zhao Lianhai should never have been arrested for organizing a self-help group and exercising his legal rights to seek compensation from a commercial firm.

The problem of tainted Chinese milk is not subsiding, despite Chinese government promises to the contrary. In September, police in China's Shanxi province arrested seven individuals [JURIST report], including the executive of a dairy company, after that company's powdered milk was found to contain melamine. In July, Chinese authorities discovered 64 tons of raw dairy materials [Xinhua report] contaminated with melamine in Qinghai province. In February, Chinese police arrested three individuals [JURIST report] for their roles in the 2008 tainted milk scandal. Two other individuals were executed [JURIST report] in November 2009 after being convicted of endangering public safety and selling toxic food. Chinese courts began hearing [JURIST report] tainted milk suits in 2009, after families began filing individual claims. Also in 2009, a Chinese court declared Sanlu Group, the Chinese company that produced the melamine-tainted milk, bankrupt [JURIST report]. In 2008, China's Hebei Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] out the possibility of initiating a class action lawsuit on behalf of the contaminated milk victims.

[JURIST] Jury selection began Tuesday [court notice] in the case of five Somali men accused of an April attack on the USS Nichols, which was deployed to combat piracy in waters off the eastern coast of Africa. In July, the men pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to a number of charges, including conspiracy, piracy and attack with the intent to plunder a vessel. They were charged by a federal grand jury [JURIST report] in April, along with six others accused of attacking the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. The trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] is the first US piracy trial in more than 100 years.

Several other suspected Somali pirates have faced charges in federal court this year. A Somali man charged with piracy pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in May to charges of hijacking, kidnapping and hostage taking related to an April 2009 attack on the US container ship Maersk Alabama [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. Another group of nine pleaded not guilty to piracy charges [JURIST report] in May. Somali officials have criticized [BBC report] the US for exercising jurisdiction over Muse and other pirate suspects, insisting that piracy prosecutions should be conducted by an international tribunal. They have also asked that Somali pirate suspects be returned to Somalia, which lacks a functioning central government to address the piracy problem. Piracy remains an issue of international concern, as few countries have been willing to prosecute suspected pirates. The few that have attempted to do so include Kenya, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] No criminal charges will be brought against Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] officials for destroying videotapes of controversial interrogations of terror suspects during the Bush administration, a federal prosecutor announced [press release] Tuesday. US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] special prosecutor John Durham "has concluded that he will not pursue criminal charges for the destruction of the interrogation videotapes," said DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller. Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-attorney general Michael Mukasey to investigate the circumstances surrounding the destruction of CIA videotapes [JURIST news archive] of the interrogation of suspected al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, which allegedly depicted numerous instances of violence and "enhanced interrogation techniques" alleged to be torture. According to documents [text, PDF; JURIST report] obtained and released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], former CIA head of clandestine services Jose Rodriguez ordered his staff to destroy the tapes on November 9, 2005, after hiding their existence from the September 11 Commission, reportedly out of fear of backlash against the intelligence agency that might result if the tapes were made public. The DOJ's announcement coincides with the expiration Tuesday of the five-year statute of limitations for bringing obstruction of justice charges. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero criticized [press release] the decision:

This decision is stunning — there is ample evidence of a cover up regarding the destruction of the tapes. The Bush administration was instructed by a court of law not to destroy evidence of torture, but that's exactly what it did. The destruction of these tapes showed complete disdain for the rule of law. ... Prosecutor Durham was charged with a criminal investigation into torture, and that investigation must include the people at the top, not just low-ranking officials. We cannot say that we live under the rule of law unless we are clear that no one is above the law.

Internal CIA documents [part 1, PDF; part 2, PDF; part 3, PDF] released in April revealed [JURIST report] that agency head Porter Goss may have supported the destruction of the videotapes. The documents, which are heavily redacted, show that Goss agreed with Rodriguez's order to destroy the tapes, despite being unaware of the order before it was carried out. Last year, it was revealed that 12 of the 92 tapes destroyed by the CIA contained evidence of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The DOJ had previously acknowledged that the CIA destroyed [letter, PDF] 92 videotapes in response to an August 2008 judicial order [text, PDF] that the CIA turn over information regarding the tapes or provide specific justifications of why it could not release the information.