Iran's prison system has been heavily criticized in recent years. The Iranian government executed two men in February convicted of killing [JURIST reports] three anti-government protesters in prison in 2009, according to a report by pro-government website Khabarnameh Daneshjooyan. The men were charged with torturing and eventually killing Mohammad Kamrani, Amir Javadi-far and Mohsen Ruholamini while they were detained at Kahrizak jail south of Iran. Observers had accused the Iranian government of conducting the highly controversial trial [JURIST report] as a mere political move. The Iranian government was also sharply criticized by both pro-democracy leaders and government supporters for the death of the protesters, who were incarcerated after the June 2009 disputed presidential election. Authorities initially claimed that the three detainees had died from meningitis, holding that the torture accusations were propaganda of the opposition party. This viewpoint began to shift in August when government officials spoke out [JURIST report] against the abuse of protesters detained in Iranian prisons and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [official website] ordered the closure of Kahrizak prison as a result. In January, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran [official website] claimed that Iran is on an "execution binge" [JURIST report], killing one prisoner every eight hours. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran [advocacy websites] also called for [press release; JURIST report] the UN General Assembly [official website] to appoint a special envoy to investigate allegations of human rights abuses following the 2009 presidential elections.

A French Muslim couple living in the UK filed a challenge [JURIST report] last month in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] over the French ban [materials, in French] on full face coverings. Also in June, a Spanish court upheld a city ban on veils in municipal buildings for identification and security purposes. Under the French ban, people caught wearing facial coverings in public can be fined € 150 (USD $215) and/or ordered to take a citizenship class. In addition, anyone convicted of forcing a someone else to cover their face may be fined up to 30,000 euro and jailed for one year [AFP report, in French], and the penalties double if the incident involves a minor. The ban affects citizens, residents and tourists alike, and extends to all public places [Le Figaro backgrounder, in French], including airports, hospitals, government offices and even places of worship that are open to the public. In October, the French Constitutional Council ruled that the ban conforms with the Constitution [JURIST report]. Also in October, Dutch politician Geert Wilders [personal website, in Dutch] said that the Netherlands will ban the burqa [JURIST report] as part of the government's plan to form a minority coalition. In August, Austria's conservative Freedom Party [official website, in German] called for a special vote [JURIST report] on whether to ban face veils and the construction of minarets, two of the most visible symbols of the Islamic faith. In July, Spain's lower house of parliament rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to ban the burqa and other full face veils by a vote of 183 to 162 with two abstaining.

The two men are not the first to be persecuted for criticizing the demonstrations in the Middle East. In April, HRW reported that an Egyptian military court convicted blogger [JURIST report] Maikel Nabil and sentenced him to three years in prison for criticizing the army and raising questions over reform in the wake of revolution. The 25-year-old blogger and activist was arrested at his home on March 28 and charged with "insulting the military establishment" and "spreading false information" for criticizing the army's handling of the revolution that began on January 25. He posted an article on his blog on March 7 saying the army had beat, tortured and killed protesters, including some who were cooperating with security forces. He was then sentenced without a formal hearing and without his lawyers present.

Two years after Estemirova's murder, there are more questions than answers about the circumstances surrounding her killing. The Russian authorities need to deliver justice in Estemirova's case to demonstrate their sincerity about protecting human rights in Chechnya and throughout the North Caucasus.

Estemirova is one of several rights advocates to be gunned down in Russia in recent years. Prominent opposition leader and human rights activist in Russia's southern province of Ingushetia [official website, in Russian], Maksharip Aushev, was shot dead [JURIST report] in October 2009 while traveling on a highway in the North Caucasus region of Kabardino-Balkaria. In August 2009, Chechen human rights activist Zarema Sadulayeva and her husband Alik Dzhabrailov were found dead [JURIST report]. Sadulayeva's death came less than a month after Estemirova's death. The body of Russian human rights activist Andrei Kulagin [JURIST report] was found in a quarry in June 2009. Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin expressed concern in April 2009 that activists in Russia were being attacked with greater frequency [JURIST report]. In January 2009, Russian human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov was shot and killed [JURIST report] in Moscow. Markelov represented journalist Anna Politkovskaya [BBC obituary], who was shot to death [JURIST report] in October 2006. JURIST Forum Guest Columnist Pamela A. Jordan argues that Estemirova's murder may help jolt average Russians into demanding that their leaders engage in legal reform in her op-ed Strong-arm Rule or Rule of Law? Prospects for Legal Reform in Russia [JURIST op-ed].

[T]he right to be confronted by one's accusers is such a fundamental element of the common law right to a fair trial that the court cannot abrogate it in the exercise of its inherent power. Only Parliament can do that. The closed material procedure excludes a party from the closed part of the trial. He cannot see the witnesses who speak in that part of the trial; nor can he see closed documents; he cannot hear or read the closed evidence or the submissions made in the closed hearing; and finally he cannot see the judge delivering the closed judgment nor can he read it.

The initial suit, a civil case brought by British resident and Iraqi citizen Bisher al-Rawi with other Guantanamo detainees, Binyam Mohamed, Jamil el-Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes and Martin Mubanga, was appealed by MI5 and MI6 [official website] after the detainees asserted that the organizations "aided and abetted" their illegal detention. Their claims for recompense were settled [JURIST report] in November by the UK government. Bisher al-Rawi was released [JURIST report] in April 2007 from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] after nearly five years in custody as an enemy combatant. Al-Rawi was originally suspected of ties to al Qaeda because of his alleged connection with radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada [BBC profile]. He was arrested returning to the UK from Gambia with a suspicious electronic device, which they claimed was a battery charger, and were taken into US custody.

A federal jury convicted [JURIST report] Rajaratnam in May on all 14 counts of insider trading. New Castle is said to have gained at least $1.7 million from the trades. Chiesi reportedly got the information from former IBM executive Robert Moffat, with whom she was having an affair. Moffat is currently serving six months in prison for insider trading in connection with the Galleon case. Moffat was sentenced [JURIST report] in September 2010 and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine for his role in the scheme after he pleaded guilty [JURIST report] the previous March. Former Intel Capital [corporate website] executive Rajiv Goel pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to insider trading charges in connection with the Galleon probe earlier in February 2010. Rajaratnam, Chiesi, Goel and Moffat were arrested in October and charged [complaint, PDF] along with two other individuals and two business entities with insider trading. The complaint alleged that the individuals provided Galleon Group and another hedge fund with material non-public information about several corporations upon which the funds traded, generating $25 million in illicit gain. Rajaratnam and Chiesi initially pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] in December 2009 after being indicted for insider trading.

the Plaintiffs engage in commercial speech because they are provided with an audience to whom they can espouse their beliefs—is particularly offensive to free speech principles. While Defendants apparently regard an assembly of people as an economic commodity, this court does not. Under such a view flyers for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance, or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely because they assemble listeners for the speaker. Accepting that proposition would permit the Government to inject its own message into virtually all speech designed to advocate a message to more than a single individual and thereby eviscerate the First Amendment's protections.

There are currently several lawsuits challenging state laws placing restrictions on abortions. Earlier this month, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block a new Texas requiring a woman to have a sonogram with the doctor describing the fetus in detail before having an abortion. The lawsuit claims that by forcing the physician to deliver government-mandated materials to the patient, it violates the First Amendment rights of both the patient and of the physician. It forces patients to hear what CRR claims is politically-motivated speech before making a decision and forces physicians to deliver unwanted information. Last month, the CRR won a preliminary injunction in the US District Court for the District of Kansas [official website] to block a Kansas regulation [SB36] requiring clinics within the state to obtain a license to perform abortions. Earlier that week, a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Dakota [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] blocking a South Dakota abortion regulation [HB 1217] requiring a 72-hour waiting period.

It is revolting to imagine that members of the media would seek to compromise the integrity of a public official for financial gain in the pursuit of yellow journalism. The 9/11 families have suffered egregiously, but unfortunately they remain vulnerable against such unjustifiable parasitic strains. We can spare no effort or expense in continuing our support for them.

These requests follow recent reports that journalists for the now-defunct British tabloid, News of the World [media website], a News Corp. subsidiary, paid London police officers for private information, including telephone records, to use in various news stories. The company could face additional charges under the accounting provisions of the FPCA for not properly recording any illicit transactions in their books.