In the present case, the injunction requiring the installation of a filtering system involves monitoring, in the interests of copyright holders, all electronic communications made through the network of the internet service provider concerned. That monitoring, moreover, is not limited in time. Such an injunction would thus result in a serious infringement of Scarlet's freedom to conduct its business as it would require Scarlet to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense. What is more, the effects of the injunction would not be limited to Scarlet, as the filtering system would also be liable to infringe the fundamental rights of its customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their right to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

This is not the first time courts have been asked to rule on issues regarding the Internet, since its use has increased in recent years. The United Kingdom's High Court of Justice [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in July for the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) [corporate website], requiring Internet provider British Telecom (BT) [corporate website] to block access to a file-sharing website, Newzbin2 [official website]. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris [official website, in French] in October ordered [JURIST report] French Internet service providers to block access to Copwatch Nord Paris I-D-F, a website designed to allow civilians to post videos of alleged police misconduct. United States courts have also been asked to weigh in on legal issues concerning the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana (ACLU) [advocacy website] in August filed a complaint [JURIST report] in federal court seeking to block a new Louisiana law that limits Internet use for registered sex offenders.

If the extremely well trained Sri Lankan military suffered 6,000 deaths and 25,000 serious injuries, it should be evident the number of LTTE casualties should be comparable or higher. However, this consideration gets almost no attention when allegations are made about the number of dead and missing during the conflict. It is almost as if those who make allegations about the deaths in battle are under the impression that the Sri Lankan military was fighting phantoms. The manifest absurdity of this underscores the lack of perspective of those who make these claims.

The Sri Lankan government has faced various allegations of human rights violations and war crimes by civil rights organizations and the UN since the end of its civil war in 2009. This month, a former Sri Lankan army chief was sentenced [JURIST report] to an additional three years in prison for his comment to a local newspaper that the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa [BBC profile] ordered the killing of surrendering rebel leaders during the civil war and therefore, was in breach of Sri Lanka's emergency laws effective at that time. He was found guilty [JURIST report] in August due to his involvement in politics while active on duty. Sri Lankan government was also subject to criticism for its failure to investigate [JURIST report] issues of torture for past human rights violations and to enforce laws against continued torture and ill-treatment by government officials against civilians. In October, a group of human rights organizations and lawmakers urged [JURIST report] the Australian government to start its investigations in Canberra against a former Sri Lankan Navy admiral for alleged war crimes violations during the civil war. During the same month, the Sri Lankan government announced [JURIST report] that it will adopt a National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. In August, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] sent a report [JURIST report] to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] accusing Sri Lankan military of having killed civilians during the civil war.