Last week, top officials of the ICTR and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] told the UN Security Council [official website] that international cooperation [JURIST report] in tracking and arresting fugitives is vital to completion of the tribunals' mandates. This year saw the arrests of the last two remaining fugitives wanted by the ICTY, but nine fugitives sought by ICTR have continued to escape capture, three of whom are among the most high-ranking of the accused. ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow called on the Member States of the Great Lakes Conference to provide information and aid in the apprehension of the remaining fugitives, as the trial work of the ICTR is due to be finished by the end of the second quarter of 2012, with appeals work finished by early 2014. Last month the two presidents told the UN General Assembly [official website] that the tribunals are in need of experienced staff to complete their work [JURIST report], warning of the difficulties in retaining staff at the ICTY and the ICTR because both tribunals are nearing the end of their work and employees are leaving for more permanent jobs.

Tuesday's ruling comes just days after Department of Health and Human Services [official website] Director Kathleen Sebelius blocked an FDA recommendation [press release] to make Plan B available OTC to women under 17. Sebelius' decision, based on concerns for the lack of data on the effects for young women, was backed by US President Barack Obama. Also Tuesday, a group of 15 US Senators wrote to Sebelius [text] expressing disappointment and seeking the specific rationale and data that went into the decision.

Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act. Texas and South Carolina, for example, have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements that we’re reviewing. We're also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process, including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period.

Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough—and fair. We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law. If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can't meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

In October, the Brennan Center for Justice [advocacy website] reported that several new US state election laws that become effective in 2012 may make it harder for some qualified voters to cast their ballots [JURIST report]. The report indicates that as many as five million voters may be affected by the changes and may find it significantly harder to vote in 2012. The study examined the five broad categories of new election laws: those that require voters show photo identification to vote, those that require proof of citizenship to register to vote, those that make it harder to register to vote by eliminating same day voter registration, those that reduce early and absentee voting and those that make it harder for convicted felons to restore their voting rights. Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge [JURIST report] to Wisconsin's new voter identification requirement. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to rule on the Texas redistricting dispute [JURIST report].

The country has experienced widespread political corruption in recent years, but current President Benigno Aquino III [BBC profile] has pledged to continue the anti-corruption efforts, which have been specifically focused on Arroyo and those connected to her. Earlier this week, the Philippine Congress voted to impeach [JURIST report] Chief Justice Renato Corona [official profile] for violating the constitution and the public trust in connection with the trial of Arroyo, who originally appointed Corona to the Supreme Court. The impeachment proceedings required at least 95 signatures to move forward, and, ultimately, 188 of the 284 members of congress voted to impeach Corona. There are eight charges [text] brought against Corona, including failure to disclose his personal finances and several allegations of partiality. The most high profile of the allegations includes a charge of partiality regarding the trial of Arroyo. It is alleged Corona granted the temporary restraining order [JURIST report] on the travel restriction of Arroyo without legal grounds in order to give her a chance to escape. The charges will now be brought to trial. If found guilty, Corona will likely be forced out of office. Corona is the first Chief Justice and Justice of the Supreme Court to be impeached, and because impeachment is a constitutional tool that is to be used only in instances involving "criminality or substantial abuse of power," a clear cut conviction is required [JURIST op-ed] in order to preserve the integrity of both the country's Congress and Supreme Court.

The initial human impact has been devastating, though the full consequences remain unclear. A group of people have found themselves unable to live the lives they had lived for many years. Some were barred from access to basic services like water, and many more were told they could not live in homes they own. The interpretation of some provisions continues to be modified by state officials or enjoined by the courts, but other provisions still deny unauthorized immigrants equal protection of the law. This has already discouraged some from reporting crimes and wage theft. Particularly hard hit have been the children of unauthorized immigrants, an especially vulnerable population, including the many who are US citizens. Legislators contend that these are "unintended consequences" of the legislation, but the proponents of the Alabama law made clear from the start their intention to make it impossible for unauthorized immigrants to live in the state.

Last week, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley [official website] announced that he would work with lawmakers to make the law more effective [JURIST report]. Bentley assured that there were no plans to repeal the law, even with pending challenges [JURIST report] from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website]. Earlier this month Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange [official website] suggested repealing specific provisions [JURIST report] of the state's controversial immigration law which criminalize the failure of illegal immigrants to carry registration documents and require public schools to collect information regarding the immigration status of their students. Both these provisions were temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website]. Alabama's immigration law is only one of the immigration measures [JURIST news archive] currently being challenged by the DOJ, American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Tymoshenko's prosecution has been highly controversial [JURIST comment] and has drawn harsh criticism internationally. Last week, the European Commission [official website] expressed its concern [Kyiv Post report] regarding a lack of transparency of Ukrainian hearings in prison, and declared that such a process does not correspond to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website]. In November, the Ukrainian Parliament voted against [agenda text] hearing amendments that may have freed [JURIST report] Tymoshenko by fining her rather than sentencing her for her criminal convictions. The EU has consistently condemned [JURIST report] the former prime minister's conviction as politically-motivated, and has indicated that the prosecution could harm Ukraine's bid for EU accession. Tymoshenko herself has also made efforts to demonstrate that the charges are motivated by her adversaries, but to no avail. In August, the Kiev Appeals Court refused an appeal of her detention for contempt charges for a lack of legal grounds to contest the arrest [JURIST reports]. Also, in June, Tymoshenko filed a complaint [JURIST report] with the ECHR alleging various violations of the European Convention of Human Rights [text, PDF] and arguing that her charges were politically engineered by current Ukrainian president and long-time political rival Viktor Yanukovych [official website]. Yanukovych narrowly defeated Tymoshenko in the presidential election in March 2010, but Tymoshenko has claimed that widespread voter fraud contributed to the outcome.

The photo ID law imposes a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as an unconstitutional poll tax; and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.

There are now 31 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 15 states that require photo ID, but the issue remains controversial. In August, South Carolina's Senate Minority Caucus filed an objection [JURIST report] with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], asking it to reject the state's new voter identification law. The caucus argued that the law, which requires South Carolina residents to present a current government-issued ID, is too restrictive and may disenfranchise African American and elderly voters. The objection followed earlier attempts by several South Carolina civil rights groups [JURIST report] to prevent the law from being implemented. In October 2010, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a portion of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. The court held that the law, Proposition 200, was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which was passed with the intent of increasing voter registration and removing barriers to registration imposed by the states.