[T]he same recognition, family support and benefits for their same-sex spouses that the military has provided and currently provides to opposite-sex spouses of current and former service members. These benefits include medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military ID cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries.

In September Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) [10 USC § 654; JURIST backgrounder] was officially repealed [JURIST report]. With the repeal of the law, the military can no longer prevent gays and lesbians from serving openly among its ranks. US President Barack Obama [official website] told gay rights activists earlier this month that he would continue to fight for the repeal [JURIST report] of DOMA, reinforcing that the DOJ is not defending its constitutionality. However, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) [official website] announced in March that he was launching a legal advisory group to defend [JURIST report] DOMA, stating "[t]he constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts, not by the president unilaterally, and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution." In February, congressional Democrats introduced the Respect for Marriage Act [text], which was intended to repeal DOMA [JURIST report], but it has not yet passed. A July 2010 ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that Section 3 of DOMA violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and State Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment [text]. Currently DOMA allows other states to ignore those recognized same-sex marriages, and prevents same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits available to married couples.

The country's upcoming election has resulted in a variety of legislative and court activity. Earlier this month, an Egyptian court overturned a ban [JURIST report] that prohibited presidential hopeful Ayman Nour [BBC profile] from forming a political party and also prohibited the formation of the Islamic-based political party Al-Gama'a al-Islamiya [party website]. The decision will allow political parties [Reuters report] previously banned because of their religious foundations to participate in the upcoming November parliamentary elections. The court found that Al-Gama'a al-Islamiya's party, "Construction and Development," should be allowed to participate in the elections because its founders consist of Muslims and non-Muslims and the party does not mandate the religion of its members. While the decision marks progress in Egypt's journey towards democratic rule, certain election prohibitions continue to restrict its progress. The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [NYT backgrounder] recently amended election rules to ban the use of religious slogans in campaigning [JURIST report]. The Supreme Council stated that "[e]lectoral campaigns based on the use of religious slogans or on racial or gender segregation are banned," adding that violators could be fined and face up to three months in jail.

In August Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged Brazil to repeal its amnesty law [JURIST report]. In December the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) [official website, in Spanish] ruled that the amnesty law was invalid [JURIST report] because it was incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights [text]. Other Latin American countries have also been working to revoke amnesty laws. On Thursday, Uruguay's legislature voted to repeal the 1986 amnesty law [JURIST report] which prevented investigations, adjudications and human rights prosecutions of military junta officials during their regime between 1973-1985. In March 2010, AI urged government officials in El Salvador to repeal a 1993 amnesty law that prevents any investigation [JURIST reports] into killings committed during the country's 12-year civil war [PBS backgrounder], including the killing of respected Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive]. In 2005, Argentina's Supreme Court struck down similar amnesty laws [JURIST report] adopted in the 1980s to protect potential defendants, prompting the government to reopen hundreds of human rights cases.

The ability of the court to sentence former officials is the result of a 2005 Argentina Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] ruling that denied amnesty to military figures [JURIST report] who committed crimes during the military dictatorship. Argentina is not alone in its decision to allow these types of prosecutions. On Thursday, Uruguay's legislature voted to repeal the 1986 amnesty law [JURIST report] which prevented investigations, adjudications and human rights prosecutions of military junta officials during their regime between 1973-1985. Proponents of the law's revocation argue that the amnesty law violates the international human rights principles and treaties signed and ratified by Uruguay. In addition, they claim it is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention of Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Rights groups have also urged Brazil and El Salvador [JURIST reports] to revoke their amnesty laws.

Analyze whether crimes falling within the ICC's jurisdiction were committed in Mt. Elgon and consider opening additional investigations in the Kenya situation currently before the ICC to bring to account persons most responsible for these crimes. The Office of the Prosecutor should consider in its analysis crimes committed by both the Sabaot Land Defence Force and Kenyan security forces.

The Ocampo Six are facing charges [JURIST report] for allegedly inciting violence during and after the December 2007 Kenyan elections. They 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 ICC summoned the suspects [JURIST report] after determining they would not be charged in Kenya for the alleged crimes. In April, Kenya requested that the ICC dismiss the case [JURIST report], arguing that the government is capable of prosecuting the six men domestically. Lawyers for the Ocampo Six called for the timely release of evidence [JURIST report] against their clients that month as well.

The ICC is the world's first permanent court mandated to bring to justice perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The ICC treaty, known as the Rome Statute, entered into force in 2002, four years after 120 states adopted it during the Rome Conference. This week four candidates were named [JURIST report] as potential successors to ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] when his nine-year term expires next year. This month Moreno-Ocampo visited the Ivory Coast in response to allegations of war crimes committed during post-election violence in the country last November, and the prosecutor subsequently singled out individuals [JURIST reports] for the ICC to investigate. In June Moreno-Ocampo made worldwide headlines by presenting to the ICC sufficient evidence to procure arrest warrants [JURIST report] for deposed Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and two of his high-ranking officials, including Gaddafi's son. Last month the ICC began hearings in Kenya's post-election violence cases against the "Ocampo Six" [JURIST reports] for incitement of violence during and after the 2007 Kenyan elections. In August the ICC concludde its first war crimes trial [JURIST report] with the prosecution of a Congo militia leader charged with enlisting child soldiers into his militia, one which is believed to have committed large-scale human rights abuses in DRC's violent Ituri district. A verdict in the case is expected in early 2012. In addition to the African investigations in Congo, northern Uganda, Libya and Kenya, along with others in the Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan, the Office of the Prosecutor is looking at situations in Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Nigeria and South Korea.

With the approval of this new law, Uruguay's Congress has taken an historical step forward in the fight against impunity for past crimes. ... Today's decision by Congress brings Uruguay in line with its obligations under international law and implements part of the ruling made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). All perpetrators of past crimes against humanity should now be brought to justice.

In June Mujica announced [JURIST report] that 80 administrative acts under the amnesty law preventing investigations of crimes committed during the 1973-1985 dictatorship will be removed. This revocation only involved the executive branch's administrative acts, leaving it for the courts to decide how to proceed. In May the House of Representative failed to repeal the amnesty law due to criticism that the law will allow the prosecution of veterans of the war but not rebel guerrillas. A month earlier, the Senate voted to overturn [JURIST reports] the law by a vote of 16-15. In March the IACHR ruled [JURIST report] that Uruguay's government must bring to justice those responsible for the disappearance of a woman abducted by Uruguay government forces in 1976. In October of last year, the effort to overturn the law through a referendum [text, PDF, in Spanish] failed [JURIST report] when only 48 percent voted in support of such change.

Earlier this week, Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland refused to allow a war crimes case against Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa [official website] despite charges that were filed [JURIST reports] by an Australian citizen claiming that during the 2009 Sri Lankan civil war, civilian targets were intentionally bombed by military forces. The charges follow closely behind a call last week [JURIST report] from the International Commission of Jurists, Australian Section (ICJA) [advocacy website] for Australia to investigate a top ranking official in the Sri Lankan High Commission [official website] in Canberra for war crimes violations allegedly committed by the Sri Lankan Navy during clashes with the LTTE in 2009. Earlier this month, Samarasinghe, announced the Cabinet of Ministers has adopted the National Action Plan [JURIST report] for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. Last month, Ban sent a report to the UN Human Rights Council [official website] accusing Sri Lankan troops of killing tens of thousands of civilians [JURIST report] during the civil war. In April, a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] committed during the country's war with the LTTE, warranting further investigation.

The appeal comes after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against [JURIST report] the five states efforts to stop Asian carp. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari [AP report] on the issue three times as of April 2010. In December 2009, the state of Michigan filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in the Supreme Court against the state of Illinois seeking to close the two waterways, as the court has original jurisdiction in disputes between the states. All three times, the court denied certiorari without comment on the dispute. Michigan reopened the longstanding controversy [backgrounder, PDF] over the diversion canal, created in the 1890s to keep Chicago's sewage from flowing into Lake Michigan. The court issued decrees over the canal in 1930, 1933, 1956, 1967 and 1980. The carp have been traveling up the Mississippi and Illinois rivers for years. Tests have showed that the carp may have gotten through an underwater electric barrier and may now be within six miles of Lake Michigan. The fish were originally imported to control algae in fisheries on the Mississippi River, but escaped during a 1990s flood.

Bashir's trial began in February [JURIST report] in the District Court of South Jakarta. He was suspected of links to al Qaeda [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder], a terrorist group with links to al Qaeda that has been implicated in a number of attacks in Indonesia, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing [JURIST news archive] that left more than 200 people dead. In 2006, the Indonesian Supreme Court overturned [JURIST report] Bashir's conviction on conspiracy charges connecting him with the bombings. He was released from prison [JURIST report] earlier in 2006 after spending 26 months in jail on different charges related to the bombings.

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.

In the last several years there have been several suits brought against officials in the Bush administration. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a torture suit against Rumsfeld by two American citizens can proceed under the cause of action recognized in Bivens. Also in August, the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled that Rumsfeld could be sued [JURIST report] by a former US military contractor who claims he was tortured while imprisoned in Iraq. In early 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] upheld the dismissal [JURIST report] of a torture suit against Rumsfeld brought by Afghan and Iraqi citizens alleging they were illegally detained and tortured. Also this year, the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] that former US Attorney General John Ashcroft is immune from suit [JURIST report] and was entitled to absolute immunity because he did not clearly violate any established law.