the United Nations categorically rejects media speculation that we have instructed the Co-Investigating Judges to dismiss [Case 3]. It similarly follows that the United Nations will not comment on issues which remain the subject of judicial consideration, nor speculate on actions that should or should not be taken by the judges or prosecutors in any case. As is normal practice, the United Nations will also not comment on internal United Nations administrative or staffing processes related to the ECCC. The United Nations will ensure that the international component of the ECCC, including the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, has sufficient resources to undertake its work.

Doubts about the legitimacy and independence of the ECCC have been raised since the decision to close ECCC Case 3. Last month, a coalition of more than 30 rights groups and development organizations in Cambodia issued an open letter [JURIST report] urging the ECCC to embrace a greater degree of transparency. In the letter, the groups outline "grave concerns" that the highly classified nature of Case 3 and Case 4 [materials] betrays a lack of "genuine" effort to bring the former members of the Khmer Rouge [BBC profile; JURIST news archives] to justice and implicates that the "impartiality, integrity and ... independence of ECCC judges are being tainted." Earlier that week, ECCC judges ordered Co-Prosecutor Andrew Cayley to retract public statements requesting further investigation [JURIST report] into Case 3. Cayley said the information was released pursuant to tribunal rules "to ensure that the public is duly informed about ongoing ECCC proceedings." The judges, however, said Cayley breached the tribunal's confidentiality and ordered the retraction. The only ECCC conviction since its founding in 2006 is of Kaing Guek Eav [ECCC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], better known as "Duch," a former prison chief at the notorious Toul Sleng prison under the Khmer Rouge. In March, he appealed his 35-year sentence for war crimes and crimes against humanity handed down by the ECCC [JURIST reports] last July.

In February, Kenneth Marende, Speaker of the Kenyan National Assembly [official website], ruled [text; JURIST report] that the CJ, DCJ and DPP nominations violated a constitutional provision. The High Court of Nairobi [official website] also ruled that the nominations were unconstitutional because they violated promises of gender equality [JURIST report]. Kibaki signed a new constitution [JURIST report] into law in August 2010 as part of a reform movement aimed at curbing vast presidential powers. Kenya's new constitution includes numerous checks on presidential authority, among which are the creation of a supreme court and senate. The new constitution was approved [JURIST report] by popular referendum earlier that same month. Voting on the constitution took place amid concerns that high turnout and heated debate over the referendum could cause a repeat of the violence seen during the country's presidential election [JURIST report] in 2007. The creation of a new constitution was part of a power-sharing agreement [JURIST report] reached in 2009 between Kibaki and opposition leader Prime Minister Raila Odinga [official website] that brought to an end the civil unrest that followed the contested election. Election officials sought to make the referendum as inclusive and peaceful as possible by allowing prisoners to vote and prosecuting those who suggested violence in reaction to the changes [JURIST reports] under hate speech laws.

Earlier last month, the ICTR convicted [JURIST report] former Rwandan army chief Augustin Bizimungu and three others. Bizimungu was sentenced to 30 years in prison while two others, Francois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye and Innocent Sagahutu, to 20 years in prison and Augustin Ndindiliyimana to time served since his arrest in 2000. Bizimungu was found guilty on six counts of genocide and crimes against humanity for murder, extermination and rape in addition to violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [text]. Last December, the ICTR sentenced [JURIST report] former Rwandan Armed Forces lieutenant Ildephonse Hategekimana to life imprisonment after convicting him on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. The court found Hategekimana guilty of three counts of genocide stemming from his involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, specifically in the massacre of civilian Tutsis in the Rwandan town of Butare.

The Libyan operations ordered by President Obama constitute "war" for the purpose of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. President Obama prosecuted the war without a declaration of Congress with the use of funds never approved for such a war. These actions have avoided a public vote on a war that is, according to recent poll, only supported by twenty-three percent of Americans. ... Obama's war in Libya is precisely what the Framers opposed—and thought they had barred—in requiring an open, public declaration for wars. The Obama Administration has read the mandatory consent of Congress out of the Constitution and replaced it with a purely discretionary power of the President to commence war with or without congressional approval. As members of Congress, the Plaintiffs assert the right to challenge a per se violation of Article I of the Constitution as well as the violation of statutory laws governing the commencement and funding of any undeclared war.

In March, US Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) [official website] announced [press release] legislation requiring an immediate halt to military action in Libya [JURIST report] until Congress authorizes its resumption. The Restoring Essential Constitutional Constraints for Libyan Action Involving the Military (RECLAIM) Act [text, PDF] cites Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution while declaring that Obama must obtain authorization before any further military action is conducted. The bill is still in committee and has yet to be voted on [bill materials]. Operation Odyssey Dawn [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], a US-led military operation, has been conducting air strikes against the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] since March. The action began after the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 [text], imposing a no-fly zone over the country. The mission, as well as US involvement absent Congressional approval, has been controversial. JURIST Contributing Editor Michael J Kelly [official profile] has argued that Obama has the constitutional authority [JURIST op-ed] to conduct the operation under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. JURIST Guest Columnist Curtis Doebbler [official profile] has argued that the operation violates international law [JURIST op-ed] by failing to comport with Article 42 of the UN Charter [text], which requires a determination that "measures not involving the use of force" have failed. JURIST Guest Columnist Jordan Paust [official profile] argues that the War Powers Resolution does not limit the president's options [JURIST op-ed] in Libya due to his constitutional authority and international obligations.

The material currently before the High Commissioner is a matter of grave concern and reflects a dire human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic. The alleged breaches of the most fundamental rights on such a broad scale require thorough investigation and, with respect to the perpetrators, full accountability. The fact-finding mission mandated by the Human Rights Council would contribute substantially toward these ends. The High Commissioner thus renews her call to the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to grant the access requested. The High Commissioner is hopeful that she will be able to provide a more extensive assessment of the human rights situation in Syria in her follow-up report to the 18th session of the Human Rights Council.

There has been a major struggle to put an end to Syrian violence since the protests began earlier this year. Most recently, the UN expressed concern [press release; JURIST report] over violence in Syria and urged the Syrian government to stop using force against protesters. In June, Syrian and international human rights groups urged the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to investigate the hundreds of civilian deaths during protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [Al Jazeera profile]. The UNHRC, in an emergency special session in April, publicly condemned [text, PDF; JURIST report] the violence used by Syrian authorities against peaceful protesters. Pillay called for Syria to immediately halt the killings [JURIST report] and violence against civilian protesters in response to the fatal shootings of peaceful anti-government protesters. Also in April, al-Assad ended [JURIST report] the country's 48-year-old state of emergency, but protests have continued. Earlier in the same month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] 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." Pillay urged the Syrian government [JURIST report] in March 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.

The court's decision on the matter now presented is grounded in separation of powers principles. It is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the Act. Choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the State of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court's task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the Act. We conclude that the legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used.

The Budget Repair Bill requires state employees to contribute a percentage of their salaries to their pension and health care premiums, and eliminates the ability of public employee union members to collectively negotiate anything but wage increase, which will be capped by the Consumer Price Index. In March, Sumi temporarily enjoined the law from being published, and then issued an order [JURIST reports] clarifying that the temporary restraining order prohibits not only publication of the bill, but implementation of its provisions as well. The judge's temporary restraining order stemmed from a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed earlier in March month by District Attorney Ismael Ozanne claiming that Republican legislators passed the bill in violation of Wisconsin's open meetings law.

Taiwan has had increasing difficulties with corruption. In November 2010, the Taiwan Supreme Prosecutors Office indicted 13 people [JURIST report], including three High Court judges, on charges of bribery, corruption and money laundering. The three judges were accused of accepting more than NT $5 million (USD $155,000) from former legislator Ho Chi-Hui [JURIST news archive] in exchange for clearing him of charges related to a corrupt land-development project. Last August, the Taipei Prosecutors Office [official website] conducted raids [JURIST report] on the homes of several High Court judges and 18 other locations searching for evidence related to the bribery deals. The three High Court judges were arrested [JURIST report] on corruption charges in July 2010 and were suspended from duty following their arrests. The judges' indictments follows the Taipei High Court's acquittal [CNA report] of former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on charges of embezzling USD $20 million from banks [JURIST report] that sought to protect themselves during Chen's financial reform program. Chen is also appealing a 20-year sentence for corruption and embezzlement.

In May 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [official website] heard arguments [JURIST report] in the appeal of Army Spc. Charles Graner [JURIST news archive]. In February 2010, the same court upheld the convictions [JURIST report] of two soldiers found guilty of offenses committed as guards at Abu Ghraib. Army Spc. Sabrina Harman had been convicted [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] of conspiracy, dereliction of duty and maltreatment of prisoners dating back to November 2003. Sgt. Michael Smith, similarly, was found guilty [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] of conspiracy to maltreat prisoners, dereliction of duty and indecent acts. Photos of Abu Ghraib prison guards smiling over al-Jamadi's body emerged after al-Jamadi's death and led to the conviction of Graner [JURIST report] for abusing detainees. A US Navy SEAL was court-martialed [JURIST report] in March 2005 in connection with al-Jamadi's death, but was later acquitted. Mark Swanner, the CIA officer identified as having conducted al-Jamadi's interrogation, has not been prosecuted in connection with his death and has denied any wrongdoing.

The challenge focused solely on issues of state law as the federal courts have already enjoined portions of the bill from taking effect. Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] affirmed a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] of HB 1804, but did permit the state to enact a provision whereby businesses would have to check their employment roster against a state list of eligible workers through a pilot program. A district court judge had originally issued the injunction [JURIST report] blocking enforcement in 2008 concluding that it was "substantially likely" that the provisions are preempted by federal immigration law, and that there was a risk of harm to the plaintiffs if the challenged provisions were to come into effect on July 1, 2008. Last month, the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [Cornell LII backgrounder] to uphold an Arizona immigration [JURIST report] law that imposes penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. There are currently federal court challenges over preemption of other immigration bills passed by Arizona and Georgia [JURIST reports].

In a case that could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public, the fact that a federal judge happens to share the same circumstances or characteristic and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public, is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4). In applying this conclusion to the present case, the Court finds that Judge Walker was not required to recuse himself under Section 455(b)(4) on the ground that he was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship and, thus, could reap speculative benefit from an injunction halting enforcement of Proposition 8 in California. In particular, in a case involving laws restricting the right of various members of the public to marry, any personal interest that a judge gleans as a member of the public who might marry is too attenuated to warrant recusal. Requiring recusal because a court issued an injunction that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute.

The fate of Proposition 8 is still lingering in appeals courts. In March, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a motion [JURIST report] filed by California Attorney General Kamala Harris [official website] to lift the stay order [JURIST report] prohibiting gay couples from marrying while the appeal is pending. In February, the Supreme Court of California [official website] announced that it would decide a critical procedural issue [JURIST report] to determine if the pending federal appeal can continue. When Walker struck down Proposition 8 last year, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former attorney general and current Governor Jerry Brown [official website], who were originally defendants in the lawsuit, refused to continue defending the measure on appeal [JURIST report], leaving defendant-intervenors Project Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. It is unclear whether they have standing to do so.

[T]his court concludes that DOMA is gender-biased because it is explicitly designed to deprive the Debtors of the benefits of other important federal law solely on the basis that these debtors are two people married to each other who happen to be men. Further, nothing about the Debtors' gender affects their fitness for bankruptcy protection available to opposite-sex marital partners. Spouses should be treated equally, whether of the opposite-sex variety or the same-sex variety, under heightened scrutiny and the principles announced by the Supreme Court and other lower court rulings discussed above.

Congressional Democrats introduced [JURIST report] legislation [text] in March to repeal DOMA after House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) [official website] announced [JURIST report] that he is launching a legal advisory group to defend [press release] DOMA. Boehner's proposal came in response to a US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] declaration [JURIST report] that it would no longer defend the constitutionality [press release] of Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman, in court cases challenging the provision. Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] acknowledged that the announcement marks a change in policy for the DOJ and the Obama administration, but noted that the change was necessary due to cases pending in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Holder explained that when the DOJ previously defended DOMA it had done so in jurisdictions with binding precedent stating that a permissive standard of review was applicable to laws dealing with sexual orientation. The announcement came just one month after the DOJ filed a brief [JURIST report] with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] defending the constitutionality of DOMA. The appeal followed a July ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which found that Section 3 of DOMA violates both the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth Amendment and State Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment [text].