Last month, a commission of Arab and Egyptian human rights groups accused the former president [JURIST report] and the country's police of murdering protesters during the demonstrations in Egypt [JURIST news archive] early this year. The joint commission submitted their report to Egypt's top prosecutor for further investigation. The Supreme Military Council of Egypt, which assumed power after Mubarak's resignation, instructed Egypt's top prosecutor to investigate the death of protesters [RIA Novosti report] during the three weeks of demonstrations in the country. Following the demonstrations, Egypt's chief prosecutor requested in February that Foreign Ministry officials take steps to freeze any foreign assets [JURIST report] belonging to Mubarak and his family.

It is not this court's duty under RLUIPA to select on its own the least restrictive alternative but rather to defer, within reason, to the judgments of prison administrators. Consequently, in analyzing whether a particular regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling security interest, the reviewing court must avoid "substituting its judgment in place of the experience and expertise of prison officials."

Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] sued [JURIST report] the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [official website] for ordering a Sikh inmate to trim his beard in violation of his religious beliefs [Sikh Coalition backgrounder]. The Fourth Circuit has previously upheld [opinion, PDF] VDOC's grooming policy prohibiting the growing of beards and stressed that "due deference" should be given to the judgments of prison officials.

The Fifth Circuit erred in requiring proof of loss causation at class certification for three reasons: First, it's conducting a merits inquiry that's not tethered to the Rule 23 requirements; second, it's not taking a presumption and requiring plaintiffs to prove it; and third, it's confusing the distinct elements of reliance and loss causation. ... [The Fifth Circuit] is not talking about rebutting the presumption of reliance, giving the defendants an opportunity to do that at class certification. It is putting an affirmative burden on plaintiffs that they have to meet in every single case, even if the defendants do not come to court with any evidence. And that is a very heavy burden, as the district court in this case realized ... the question is do common issues predominate over individual ones. What you're trying to answer is can this group of people proceed together, not can this group of people make out their case.

In McNeill v. United States [oral argument transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court will determine how retroactive sentencing laws affect the definition of a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [18 USC § 924]. Clifton McNeill was arrested in 2007 after police discovered a firearm and 3.1 grams of cocaine during a search incident to arrest for eluding a traffic stop. In light of previous drug convictions in 1992 and 1995, McNeill was convicted under the ACCA. The previous convictions and sentencing structure met the definitions of a "serious drug offense" at the time they were committed, but the statutory sentences for those offenses were reduced in later years and do not currently meet the ACCA definition. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the ACCA still applied regardless of the subsequent statutory changes. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

When Congress defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act a "serious" drug offense as one for which a State penalty of 10 years or more is prescribed by law, it meant for Federal courts to look to the law presently in effect in that State. This is the most natural reading of the statute, and words matter. It is also consistent with ACCA's purpose, which is [to] punish the Federal firearms offense ... [but] not to enhance a sentence because of the prior conviction. ... [W]hen the defendant commits the offense, what his status is at that time under the law we think makes sense and is consonant with the purpose of what ACCA is trying to do. ACCA is not trying to punish the State offense at the time. ... The question is, in a statute that defers to the judgment of the States to determine seriousness, are we going to defer to the current State assessment of what seriousness is or are we going to look back to repeal the discarded judgments?

Another recent referendum has created some instability in Sudan. In January, more than 98 percent of southern Sudanese voters voted in favor of secession [JURIST report] from northern Sudan. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] issued a formal decree [JURIST report] in February accepting the result of the referendum as the will of the southern people. The secession will officially take place on July 9 in Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan. There have been 101 deaths in the region since Tuesday [Daily Mail report] as a result of fighting between the south Sudanese army and rebel militias. The southern Sudanese government has accused the north of facilitating the fighting in order to create instability in the region to maintain the region's reliance on the north's oil infrastructure. In September, a human rights expert told the UN that Sudan was not prepared [JURIST report] for the referendum and that a lack of infrastructure in southern Sudan could lead to human rights violations, including suppression of free speech and inadequate protection of society due to a lack of well-trained police officers, prosecutors and judges.

The enactment of the health care reform law has incited a number of legal challenges in addition to that posed by Virginia. Last week a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey [official website] rejected [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Judge Freda Wolfson dismissed the lawsuit, brought without an attorney by two New Jersey residents, on jurisdictional grounds, ruling the two men had no standing [Cornell LII backgrounder] to challenge the law. In a similar ruling earlier in the month, a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] also challenging the law's constitutionality and held that the plaintiff, 80-year-old Harold Peterson, lacked standing because his Medicare coverage automatically satisfied the law's insurance mandate. A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] has also struck down the law, while judges in Michigan and Virginia have upheld it [JURIST reports].

Last week, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [Al Jazeera profile] ended [JURIST report] the country's 48-year-old state of emergency, but protests have continued. Earlier this month, HRW reported [text] that Syrian security forces have stopped medical personnel [JURIST report], sometimes violently, from attending to injured protesters. A spokesperson for the group called the practice "both inhumane and illegal." Last month, Pillay urged the Syrian government [JURIST report] to ensure protesters' rights to peaceful expression and to work toward addressing their concerns instead of responding with violence. As demonstrations continued throughout the country in March, the government freed 260 political detainees [AFP report] in an overture to the protesters.

These documents are remarkable because they show just how questionable the government's basis has been for detaining hundreds of people, in some cases indefinitely, at Guantanamo. The one-sided assessments are rife with uncorroborated evidence, information obtained through torture, speculation, errors and allegations that have been proven false. If the government had followed the law, it would have established a meaningful and prompt process to separate the innocent from those who are legally detainable.

The military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was opened in January 2002 [JURIST Archives report], and has consistently been a focal point for national and international controversy over the treatment of detainees. The leaks come as President Barack Obama has been attempting to close the facility [JURIST report] and transfer the detainees [JURIST news archive] to other countries. Closing the facility has faced several difficulties, however, and attempts to prosecute detainees in civilian courts have recently failed [JURIST reports]. The Guantanamo Files are the latest in a line of leaks that have shed light on the military and diplomatic actions [JURIST reports] of the US government in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks [JURIST news archive].

Mohammed said that the new constitution would result in more power being given to elected officials, as well as an independent judiciary. Under the plan, the prime minister would be chosen based on the political party elected to a majority of seats in parliament and more power would be granted to the parliament. Also, local officials would be granted more power through a "regionalization program" where officials would be elected to regional councils through a direct vote. The councils would be responsible for governing the affairs of the region. The announcement of the constitutional reforms came less than a month after thousands of Moroccans demonstrated [AFP report] across the country, demanding limits on the power of the monarch, as well as more sweeping political reform. Similar protests have occurred recently throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], and have resulted in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports], and an ongoing conflict between protesters and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive].

The National Assembly of Hungary [official website, in Hungarian] approved [statement, in Hungarian] the new constitution last week by a margin of 262-44 and one abstention, and European lawmakers have already sought EU review [JURIST reports] of the document. Members of the country's socialist party (MSZP) [official website, in Hungarian] and green liberal political party (LMP) boycotted the vote [Reuters report]. The measure was supported by and passed as a result of the ruling Hungarian Civic Party (FIDESZ) [official website, in Hungarian], which has controlled a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly since 2010. 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 Amnesty International [advocacy website], which urged Hungary to amend the law [JURIST report] because it curtails freedom of expression.