The action by the military to declare the hospital a legitimate military target, and the use of the health system as a tool by the security apparatus, completely ignores and undermines the fact that all patients have a right to treatment in a safe environment, and that all medical staff have a fundamental duty to administer treatment without discrimination

Last month, six opposition leaders were arrested [JURIST report] in Bahrain after the government, backed by foreign troops from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) [official website], violently dispersed protesters in the capital of Manana. Days earlier, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official website] declared [JURIST report] a three-month state of emergency [decree text, in Arabic] in response to growing unrest in the island nation. The state of emergency came just days after a group of 22 Bahraini lawmakers, part of an independent pro-government bloc, called on the King to impose martial law [JURIST report] under articles 36 and 123 of the Bahraini Constitution [text, PDF]. Also last month, the member states of the GCC, which includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE, deployed troops to Bahrain [BBC report] for the purpose of guarding oil installations and financial institutions. The Bahraini government's response to the ongoing protests have prompted international concern. In February, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called for an end to violence against protesters [JURIST report] in the country, referencing attempts to quell protests sweeping across the region.

Last month, Sumi issued an order [JURIST report] clarifying that the temporary restraining order issued March 18 prohibits not only publication of the bill, but implementation of its provisions as well. Sumi's order was issued in response to debate among government officials [JURIST report] that the law went into effect after it was published on the Wisconsin Legislative Bureau's website. The lawsuit [complaint, PDF] over the bill alleges that Republican lawmakers did not follow the state's open meetings law [text], a rule requiring 24 hours notice—or two hours if there is an emergency—before a public meeting. District Attorney Ismael Ozanne [official website] filed the complaint [JURIST report] in an attempt to invalidate the law, which strips public unions of the vast majority of their collective bargaining right.

This bill's approval comes shortly after Arizona's January shootings, during which six people were killed [JURIST report] and 13 were wounded, including a federal judge and US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) [official website]. Last month, in response to the shootings, President Barack Obama called for a greater enforcement of gun laws [JURIST report] in order to minimize gun violence. However, Arizona, known as one of the most liberal gun law states [Arizona Republic report] in the nation, is working to loosen even more gun law restrictions. Last year, Arizona passed a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons on their body without a permit [Arizona Republic report]. Gun owners may also carry their weapons inside the state Capitol and in other government buildings. Currently, at least ten other pieces of gun-related proposals are pending in the Arizona legislature.

Three Kenyan leaders connected with the opposing political party appeared before the ICC [JURIST report] on Thursday for their alleged roles in the election violence. Together the two groups of suspects are known as the "Ocampo Six" and their hearings were separated based upon political party affiliation. The men brought before the ICC on Thursday are members of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) [party website] and were charged with targeting members of the opposing Party for National Unity (PNU) following the election of Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki [official profile], which they claimed was rigged. All six suspects are believed to have fomented violence, rape and destruction of property during the 30 days of post-election violence, and the ICC summoned the suspects [JURIST report] after determining they were not charged in Kenya for the alleged crimes. Last week, Kenya requested that the ICC dismiss the case [JURIST report], arguing that the government is capable of prosecuting the six men domestically. The Kenyan government also announced last month that it would challenge the admissibility of cases [JURIST report] relating to the post-election violence in the ICC, as well as the jurisdiction of the court.

Egypt has been heavily criticized by rights groups and international organizations for its handling of protesters. In February, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] reported new evidence that the Supreme Military Council of Egypt had been torturing protester-detainees [JURIST report]. Through various detainee accounts, AI stated that individuals were tortured "to intimidate protesters and to obtain information about plans for the protests." Also in February, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported that the Egyptian military was improperly detaining protesters and allowing prisoner abuse [JURIST report]. The report calculated at least 119 arbitrary detentions and five incidents of torture, providing detainee accounts. HRW contends that the military was targeting human rights activists, protesters and journalists. In January, UN officials including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official websites] urged the Egyptian government to exercise restraint [JURIST report] and respect the rights of protesters.

The eruption of violence in Libya has sparked outrage over alleged abuses by Gaddafi's forces and controversy regarding the proper role of other nations in Libyan affairs. Last month, the ICC's chief prosecutor announced that Libyan officials could face war crimes charges [JURIST report] for attacks on civilians. Earlier in the month, the UN Human Rights Council voted to suspend Libya, which had been a member of that body. With regard to NATO military activity, commentators have argued that military intervention in Libya is contrary to international law [JURIST op-ed]. In the US, one lawmaker proposed legislation that would immediately halt US activities [JURIST report] in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, stating that President Barack Obama lacked authority to utilize American forces for that role.

A cause of action for injunctive relief...may be maintained by the woman upon whom an abortion was performed or attempted to be performed in violation of this act, by any person who is the spouse, parent, sibling, or guardian of, or a current or former licensed health care provider of, the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted to be performed in violation of this act, by a district attorney with appropriate jurisdiction, or by the Attorney General.

Alabama's House bill is part of a wave of acts passed by state legislatures since the November elections aimed at restricting abortions. On Wednesday, the Ohio Senate [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] that would limit the availability of abortions after 20 weeks. A day earlier, the Idaho legislature [official website] gave final approval to a bill [JURIST report] that would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks. Last week, the Iowa House of Representatives [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] that would prohibit doctors from performing late-term abortions in the state. Last month, the Kansas Senate [official website] approved legislation restricting late-term abortions, after the House of Representatives approved the measure [JURIST reports] in February. Bills proposing similar abortion restrictions were also approved last month in the Missouri House of Representatives and the Oklahoma House of Representatives [JURIST reports]. Also last month, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard [official website] signed into law [JURIST report] a bill requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion.

Last month, in an unprecedented civil decision, a French court awarded [JURIST report] a Bosnian family 200,000 euros (USD $280,000) for wartime abuses committed by former Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Biljana Plavsic [JURIST news archives]. The court's ruling may pave the way for victims of war crimes to obtain civil compensation from war criminals without a criminal trial. Karadzic faces 11 war crimes charges [indictment, PDF], including counts of genocide and murder, for alleged crimes he committed during the war in BiH. Karadzic is defending himself in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] and has denied all of the charges against him. After multiple suspensions [JURIST reports], Karadzic's trial is expected to last through 2012. In 2009, Plavsic was released [JURIST report] from a Swedish prison after serving two-thirds of her sentence for war crimes committed between July 1991 and December 1992. Plavsic voluntarily surrendered herself to the ICTY in 2001 and was sentenced to 11 years in a Swedish prison. The ICTY agreed to grant her release [JURIST report], citing good behavior and "substantial evidence of rehabilitation."