When it instructed courts to recognize that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation, Congress intended to end the practice of sending defendants to prison so that they might get treatment. The commands of 3582 are clear on this point: Do no imprison and do not lengthen prison sentences for the purposes of rehabilitation. ... Under the statute, judges have the power to sentence defendants to prison but not to prison programs...[W]ith regard to revocation, to the extent that that's at issue, we concur with the Solicitor General that doesn't govern a revocation of supervised release because it's not the imposition of a term of imprisonment but, rather, requiring the individual to serve a portion of the supervised release term in prison. So, by its plain terms, it simply isn't applicable.

In Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court will determine whether the Patent Act [35 USC §§ 1-376 text] requires the invalidity defense to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit followed its precedent and held [opinion, PDF] that a challenger to a patent claim must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the appeals court held that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence as to damages or in granting enhanced damages. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the default standard of review is preponderance of the evidence, which governs all patent cases because 35 USC § 282 "does not specify a heightened standard of proof ... therefore, preponderance, the default standard applies." Counsel further explained that:

[I]t makes no sense to have a heightened standard of proof when the relevant prior art evidence was never even considered by [the Patent and Trademark Office]. Under any view, it was error to require clear and convincing proof of invalidity in this case. ... And, moreover, while the statute does not specify a heightened standard, it does actually speak to and preclude the argument that i4i makes. ... The statute requires a degree of deference by shifting the burden of proof and the burden of going forward, but for i4i to say that we need to go beyond what the presumption is, the normal default standard of preponderance, you need some heightened reason for that. There's absolutely none, particularly when the Patent Office didn't consider the evidence, didn't make a decision, there was no decision and no evidence considered going to the relevant question.

[T]he Government of Sri Lanka, in compliance with its international obligations and with a view of initiating an effective domestic accountability process, should immediately commence genuine investigations into these and other alleged violations of international humanitarians and human rights law committed by both sides involved in the armed conflict.

In December, the Sri Lankan Ministry of External Affairs [official website] announced that the UN panel would be allowed to visit [JURIST report] the island to look into alleged war crimes in the final stages of the conflict with the LTTE. The decision signaled a reversal after months of strong opposition [JURIST report] from the Sri Lankan government under President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official profile], who described the UN panel as an infringement of Sri Lanka's sovereignty. Rajapaksa appointed his own Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to investigate the final years of the conflict from the ceasefire in 2002 to its conclusion in 2009. Despite having its credibility contested by several human rights organizations, the LLRC began public hearings [JURIST report] in August with an appearance by Sri Lanka Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa [official profile], who defended the actions of the government [JURIST report] during the conflict. The government has repeatedly denied accusations that its forces violated international law during the conflict.

In the past decade, the US has made significant strides in prosecuting those involved in the El Salvadoran civil war. In 2006, US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] upheld a $55 million verdict [JURIST report] against Vides and his co-defendant Jose Guillermo Garcia for allowing torture and other human rights violations during the war. In 2005, a US federal court reached a verdict against Nicolas Carranza, top commander of El Salvador's security forces during the civil war, for $2 million in compensatory damages [JURIST report]. The case was brought by five Salvadoran citizens who alleged torture or had family killed by Carranza's soldier during the war. In 2000, however, the US lost the battle to seek justice for the murders of four American churchwomen [NYT report] during the civil war when both Vides and Garcia were acquitted. The ruling was grounded in the doctrine that the generals, although responsible for their soldiers, may not have had complete effective power to reign in the abuses of their troops.

Other laws passed by the FIDESZ-led parliament have garnered controversy as well. In February, the government agreed to change its controversial media law following negotiations between Hungarian and EU representatives [JURIST reports]. The law created the National Media Communications Authority (NMHH) [official website, in Hungarian], which controls private television and radio broadcasters, newspapers and online news sites. Under the law, the government could fine broadcasters more than 700,000 euros and newspapers and news websites roughly 90,000 euros if their coverage is deemed unbalanced or immoral by the NMHH, made up of members loyal to FIDESZ. The law was approved in December 2010 and went into effect in January amid protests from members of the media, other European governments as well as AI, which urged Hungary to amend the law [JURIST report] because it curtails freedom of expression.

The six defendants, called the "Ocampo Six," include several high-ranking members of Kenya's government, the head of operations at Kass FM [official website] in Nairobi and the son of Kenya's first president, Jomo Kenyatta [Africa Within backgrounder]. Three of the men are members of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) [party website] and the other three are members of the opposing Party for National Unity (PNU). The ODM suspects are charged with fomenting violence against PNU members following the 2007 elections because they believed the election of Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki [official profile] to be rigged. In response, the PNU suspects are charged with the conspiring with the Mungiki criminal organization [Safer Access backgrounder, PDF] to attack members of the ODM party. The ICC summoned the suspects [JURIST report] after determining they would not be charged in Kenya for the alleged crimes. Earlier this month, 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.

In my view, these offers, the lack of any meaningful challenge as to their appropriateness, and the Government's uncontested commitment to continue to work to resettle petitioners transform petitioners' claim. Under present circumstances, I see no Government-imposed obstacle to petitioners' timely release and appropriate resettlement. Accordingly, I join in the Court's denial of certiorari.

In Judulang v. Holder [docket, cert. petition, PDF], the court granted certiorari to determine whether a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable may seek a waiver of the conviction and thereby avoid removal under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petitioner's request for a waiver, holding [opinion, PDF] that his aggravated felony crime of violence was not a ground for exclusion under the statute. The court cited its decision in Abebe v. Gonzalez as controlling the issue. In that case, the court concluded that the lack of a substantially identical statutory counterpart in § 212(a) for aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor among the grounds for exclusion rendered the alien ineligible for § 212(c) relief.

Last December, the founder and former chief executive of Parmalat, Calisto Tanzi [NNDB profile], was convicted [JURIST report] along with 14 other former executives for the company's fraudulent bankruptcy. The court also ordered them to reimburse the company two billion euros. Last July, BOA announced that it reached a settlement [JURIST report] with Parmalat in litigation stemming from its 2003 collapse. Under the terms of the settlement, BOA will pay Pamalat USD $100 million, which includes both cash and non-cash components. The settlement resolves a $10 million lawsuit filed by Parmalat against BOA in 2004 and a counterclaim [JURIST reports] filed by BOA, alleging the company engaged in fraud and is maliciously suing the bank to shift blame. In December 2008, a Milan court in a separate case concerning stock market manipulation sentenced [JURIST report] Tanzi to 10 years in prison for his role in the company's collapse. Tanzi was the first executive to be sentenced in connection with the 14 billion euro fraud scheme in 2003 that bankrupted the company.

Besigye is the leader of the Uganda's most prominent opposition party, the Forum for Democratic Change [official website]. He lost to incumbent President Yoweri Museveni [BBC profile] in elections held this past February. The elections were criticized by the opposition as fraudulent [Guardian report]. Besigye also ran for president [BBC report] in 2002 and 2006, and, prior to that, he was Museveni's personal doctor. In October 2010, Uganda's Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed treason charges [JURIST report] against Besigye and 10 co-defendants, ruling that there was insufficient evidence and that the state had violated the defendants' rights. Besigye had been charged [JURIST report] with plotting to forcefully overthrow the Ugandan government between 2001 and 2004 but had always maintained his innocence, calling the charges against him politically motivated.

The decision came just days after the court ordered Mubarak moved to a hospital to recover from an unspecified ailment, causing a delay in questioning [JURIST report] regarding his alleged roles in protester deaths and embezzlement of government money. The week before, the chief prosecutor summoned [Al Jazeera report] Mubarak for questioning, along with his two sons, Gamal and Alaa. Egyptian authorities continued to question Mubarak's sons [AFP report] after Mubarak was taken to the hospital. In a televised statement on Sunday, Mubarak denied corruption charges [BBC report], asserted his right to defend his reputation and expressed his willingness to cooperate [Al Arabiya report] with investigations, denying that he owns property abroad or holds foreign bank accounts.