Those forums allow people a chance to express their thoughts about matters of interest. But they are not the functional equivalent of the types of news media outlets outlined in the Shield Law. Neither writing a letter to the editor nor posting a comment on an online message board establishes the connection with "news media" required by the statute. Therefore, even under the most liberal interpretation of the statute, defendant's use of a message board to post her comments is not covered under the Shield Law. We do not believe that the Legislature intended to provide everyone who posts a comment on Oprano or a response to an article on NJ.com an absolute reporter's privilege under the Shield Law.

Protection for journalists [JURIST news archive] and their sources continues to be a worldwide concern. In October, the Supreme Court of Canada [official website] expanded journalists' rights to protect sources [JURIST report] while testifying. In April 2010, Germany announced plans to enact legislation [JURIST report] meant to increase freedom of the press. Also in 2010, the Icelandic Parliament [official website, in Icelandic] began considering measures [JURIST report] aimed at increasing protections for journalists and promoting freedom of speech and transparency in government. In December 2009, the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] approved a bill [JURIST report] that would protect journalists' abilities to shield sources in federal court proceedings.

Former New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo [official website] announced in August 2008 that 12 states had filed suit [press release] against the EPA for its alleged failure to enforce provisions of the CAA requiring oil refineries to adopt measures curbing the pollution contributing to global warming. The lawsuit was an attempt by New York and several other states to force the EPA to comply with CAA terms requiring global warming pollution regulation. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] vacated [decision, PDF; JURIST report] a 2006 EPA rule [Federal Register notice] prohibiting state and local governments from monitoring air pollution below acceptable levels set by the EPA for "stationary" sources such as power plants and factories. Earlier in 2008, 14 states sued the EPA over new smog regulations [JURIST report]. In 2006, a group of states sued the EPA [JURIST report] over its alleged failure to regulate smog emissions from power plants. The EPA and the US Justice Department announced [JURIST report] in October 2005 that ExxonMobil would spend an estimated $571 million to settle a lawsuit with the federal government and three states over alleged violations of the CAA. The settlement was intended to cut the annual production of pollutants from ExxonMobil's refineries that cause respiratory problems and worsen childhood asthma, and must be spent cutting the production of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

China's human rights record has been widely criticized. Earlier this month, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] urged the Chinese government to release protesters [JURIST report] arrested during peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square [BBC backgrounder] in June 1989. Last year detained Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was announced [JURIST report] as the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The Chinese government denounced the decision, calling it "contrary to the purpose of the Nobel Prize." In February 2010, a Chinese appeals court upheld [JURIST report] Liu's 11-year prison sentence despite calls for his release from US and EU officials. Liu was tried [JURIST report] in December 2009 on subversion charges in a trial that lasted only two hours and was closed to foreign diplomats. Liu was formally arrested in June 2009 and charged [JURIST reports] in December, but he has been in detention since December 2008, shortly before the petition's release. In June 2009, rights groups marked the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 uprising in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, calling for the government to investigate the incident [JURIST report] and implement changes called for by Charter 08.

The mandate of the International Criminal Court is to end impunity to prevent future crimes. We share this mission with the UN Security Council, the African Union and the Government of the Sudan. The efficacy of our common efforts will depend greatly on how we share information with each other and learn from it. The Prosecution is trying to improve its practice in this area, linking the information collected with the current behavior of the suspects.

Several countries have been reported for failing to arrest al-Bashir while he has been present inside their borders. In May, the ICC urged Djibouti [JURIST report] to arrest al-Bashir. In October, the ICC requested that Kenya arrest al-Bashir [JURIST report] while he visited that year for a second time. Previously, al-Bashir had visited Kenya for the signing of the country's new constitution [JURIST report]. Following his visit, the ICC reported Kenya [decision, PDF; JURIST report] to the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute for the violation in not arresting al-Bashir. Also following his August visit, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Kenya to reaffirm its cooperation with the ICC by arresting al-Bashir [JURIST report]. In July, the ICC called for al-Bashir's arrest [JURIST report] during his visit to Chad, marking the first visit to an ICC member state since the warrants were issued. The ICC also reported Chad [decision, PDF] to the Security Council and Assembly of States Parties.

The PPACA has sparked several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in a similar challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) [advocacy website]. But in that case the court of appeals asked the parties to address to standing concerns [JURIST report] of whether there is an injury in fact and whether review is precluded until after implementation of the law. The appeal stems from a ruling upholding [JURIST report] the PPACA and its individual mandate. Also last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] decided it can rule on two challenges to the PPACA after the court requested briefs from all parties on whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) [text], which prevents injunctions against taxes before the tax is imposed, would bar review of PPACA until it is implemented. The Fourth Circuit had already heard oral arguments [JURIST report] last month to resolve a split decision between the US district courts for the Eastern District of Virginia ruling against individual mandate provision and the Western District of Virginia dismissing a challenge [JURIST reports]. In May, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) [advocacy website] sought to have its challenge reinstated [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] after it was dismissed by the lower court.

With the recent conclusion of proceedings [JURIST report] against Charles Taylor, the SCSL has largely fulfilled its mission and will take steps to shut down upon a verdict [BBC report]. In November 2009, the SCSL handed over its detention facility [JURIST report] to the Sierra Leone Prison Service in a monumental step towards the court's resolution. The month before, eight men judged guilty of war crimes by the court were transferred [JURIST report] to Rwanda to serve out their terms. The SCSL was created in a joint endeavor by the government of Sierra Leone and the UN to provide a forum to try those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law, committed in Sierra Leone.

The defendants in this case seized Jose Padilla from a civilian jail and hid him away in a military brig precisely to keep the courts from interfering with the terrible things they were doing to him. By granting the defendants legal immunity for their cruel acts, the district court vindicated their deliberate efforts to circumvent the Constitution. If the law does not protect Jose Padilla—an American citizen arrested on American soil and tortured in an American prison—it protects no one.

Though Padilla's lawsuit against Rumsfeld and the others was dismissed by a South Carolina judge, a federal judge in San Francisco reached the opposite conclusion in June 2009 when he allowed a lawsuit filed [JURIST reports] by Padilla to move forward against University of California Berkeley law professor John Yoo [academic profile; JURIST news archive], the author of controversial US government memos arguing that detained enemy combatants could be denied Geneva Conventions protections against torture. The suit alleges that Yoo's memos, written while he was a senior lawyer in the US Justice Department, helped set the Bush administration's policy that terrorism detainees are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Padilla was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison [JURIST report], along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifadh Wael Jayyousi, on charges of conspiracy to commit illegal violent acts outside the US, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and providing material support to terrorists.

Bahrain, along with several other Middle Eastern and North African nations, has faced criticism from international human rights organizations for its handling of pro-reform protests in recent months. In May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said the government of Bahrain should suspend prosecution of civilians in military courts and set up an impartial commission to investigate torture allegations [press release; JURIST report]. Also in May, Pillay urged the government of Bahrain to release detained activists [JURIST report] and exercise restraint against protesters. She expressed concern over the prosecution of medical professionals and the death sentences [JURIST report] handed to four activists last month. In April, human rights organizations including HRW and Doctors Without Borders (DWB) [advocacy website] criticized Bahrain [JURIST report] for human rights abuses related to anti-government protests. Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official website] announced [JURIST report] that the three-month state of emergency [decree text, in Arabic] put in place [JURIST report] in mid-March in response to growing unrest, would be lifted two weeks early. In March, the OHCHR expressed concern [UN News Centre report; JURIST report] over violence against protesters in Bahrain.

In March, a Quezon City court dismissed rebellion charges [JURIST report] against 24 people, including Ampatuan Sr. Days earlier, a court issued arrest warrants [JURIST report] for 189 suspects. The PDOJ had already charged 197 people with murder [JURIST report] in connection with the November 2009 killings. In December 2009, the PDOJ began the trial [JURIST report] of more than 600 people charged with rebellion for allegedly interfering with government operations following the killings. Several of Amapuan Sr.'s sons, including Andal Ampatuan Jr., the mayor of the southern Philippine town of Datu Unsay, have also been charged. Amapuan Jr. has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to 41 counts of murder. The Ampatuans and several of their followers are alleged to have intercepted Mangudadatu's convoy en route to declare his candidacy for governor at a regional election office, ultimately forcing his convoy to a remote hilltop where the Ampatuans' group killed and buried them. Following the killings, former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [BBC profile] imposed martial law [JURIST report] and suspended habeas corpus in Maguindanao. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges [JURIST reports].

Campaign finance regulation has been in a state of flux since Citizens United was decided in January of last year. In May, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] a Minnesota campaign financing law prohibiting direct contributions to candidates and affiliated entities. A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] in April dismissed two challenges [JURIST report] to campaign financing schemes for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. Last March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in two consolidated campaign finance cases. In Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether the First Amendment [text] forbids states from providing publicly financed candidates with additional government subsidies, which are triggered by independent expenditure groups' speech against such candidates or by the candidates' privately financed opponents. In McComish v. Bennett, the court will determine whether Arizona's matching funds law and a law regulating campaign financing to equalize resources among candidates and interest groups, rather than advancing a compelling state interest in the least restrictive manner, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments [text].

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled that Khodorkovsky did not prove his prosecution and detention for tax evasion and fraud were politically motivated but found that his detention violated human rights standards. Last month, a Moscow court upheld a second set of fraud convictions [JURIST report] against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev but reduced their sentences by one year. The two men, already serving sentences handed down in 2005 for fraud and tax evasion, were convicted in December of embezzling from their company, Yukos Oil, and sentenced [JURIST reports] to an additional eight years. They appealed, alleging, among other things, that Judge Viktor Danilkin did not write the verdict [JURIST reports] and that he was coerced into reading it. Khodorkovsky vehemently criticized [press release] the ruling as flying in the face of the rule of law. The two men can now expect to be released in 2016 instead of 2017. The December verdict drew harsh international criticism [JURIST report], including from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile], who said [press release] that the ruling "raises serious questions about selective prosecution." The Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs [official website, in Russian] dismissed critics, saying [press release, in Russian] that "[a]ttempts to exert pressure on the court are unacceptable."

Earlier this year, the US Department of State (DOS) [official website] also criticized Kyrgyzstan [JURIST report] in its 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials], stating Kyrgyzstan [materials] still faced significant rights issues and ethnic violence despite the overthrow of an authoritarian government and the passage of a new constitution [JURIST reports]. In November, a court in Kyrgyzstan sentenced 19 ethnic Uzbeks [JURIST report] for their involvement in the June 2010 ethnic violence. The first convictions [JURIST report] were issued in September, handing down prison terms for eight ethnic Uzbeks in a case stemming from the murder of a Kyrgyz police officer during the violence. The convictions were later described as politically motivated. In July, the Kyrgyz government announced that it had opened more than 1,000 criminal cases [JURIST report] stemming from the violence, and that 106 individuals had been detained, with 97 in custody.