The UN General Assembly adopted the convention [JURIST report] in December 2006 as the first human rights treaty of the twenty-first century. It was approved in August of that year after running into some last-minute problems [JURIST reports]. Earlier that week, the committee that drafted the bill was given 150 proposed amendments to review. The US also caused frustration when the Bush administration said that it would not sign [JURIST report] the convention, claiming its Americans with Disabilities Act [home page] already provided adequate protection for its citizens with disabilities. President Barack Obama's administration, however, voiced support and signed the treaty [JURIST report] in 2009.

The main elements of the so-called fiscal compact include a requirement for national budgets to be in balance or in surplus, a criterion that would be met if the annual structural government deficit does not exceed 0.5% of GDP at market prices. This balanced budget rule must be incorporated into the member states' national legal systems, preferably at constitutional level, within one year after the entry into force of the treaty. In the event of deviation from this rule, an automatic correction mechanism will be triggered. It will be defined by each member state on the basis of principles proposed by the European Commission.

EU governments have grappled with the proper methods to coordinate their responses to the region's fiscal instability. Some have commented that certain countries may need to leave the Eurozone [JURIST op-ed] in order to achieve greater stability. Last week, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court [official website, in German] ruled [JURIST report] that use of a parliamentary subcommittee to fast-track decisions related to eurozone bailouts is unconstitutional. In September, the German constitutional court rejected as unfounded [JURIST report] three constitutional complaints against German and European legal instruments and other measures in connection with both the European Monetary Union rescue package and the financial aid package for Greece. The high court ruled [press release] that by voting through national acts that implement the broader European measures, the Bundestag did not unconstitutionally impair its own ability to adopt and control the nation's budget, nor did it infringe on the budget autonomy of future parliaments. In May 2010, the court refused to issue a temporary injunction [JURIST report] against the German government's €22.4 billion ($28.5 billion) contribution to the bailout package for Greece, which has been gripped by a dire debt crisis [BBC backgrounder] and faced severe austerity measures [JURIST report] as it confronted its debt concerns. The court held that the complainants seeking the injunction did not produce any concrete evidence that their rights under Germany's Basic Law could be "seriously and irreversibly" affected as a result of the guaranteed loan. The court's press release also noted that potential liability risk as a result of the contribution is outweighed by reducing the risks of damaging Germany's national economy as a result of instability of the European Monetary Union.

Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Oklahoma's bill, which specifically mentions outlawing Sharia, is currently being blocked [JURIST report] until its constitutionality can be reviewed. That bill was passed by voters [JURIST report] in November 2010. There has been a wave of legislation attempting [JURIST commentary] to outlaw Sharia and other foreign law which has sparked much controversy [JURIST comment] around the issue.

Virignia is not the first state to pass such legislation, and similar rules have drawn various results when challenged in the court system. Last month the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] lifted an injunction [JURIST report] on a Texas law [JURIST report] that requires women to have a sonogram before undergoing an abortion, allowing the law to be enforced. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March 2010 the Supreme Court of Oklahoma [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.

Rios Montt's trial was ordered to continue in January [JURIST report]. The Guatemalan civil war resulted in more than 200,000 deaths, mostly among Guatemala's large indigenous Mayan population. According to a UN report [text, in Spanish] released in 1999, the military was responsible for 95 percent of those deaths. In response to these violations, the Guatemalan government founded the National Compensation Program (PNR) in 2003 to deal with claims by civilians affected by the civil war. The PNR, after setting up its administrative structure, has begun to use its $40 million budget to work through a backlog of more than 98,000 civilian complaints. Four former soldiers and two former police officers [JURIST reports] have already been convicted in relation to these crime.

The Arizona immigration law [SB 1070, PDF] has had a polarizing effect since its passage. Similar legislation has passed in Utah, South Carolina and Indiana [JURIST reports]. Attorneys for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer filed a brief with the US Supreme Court in February, asking the court to lift the injunction [JURIST report] that has blocked several provisions of SB 1070 from taking effect. In December the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether Arizona's controversial immigration law is preempted by federal law [JURIST report]. In November the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] urged the Supreme Court not to hear Arizona's appeal [JURIST report]. The Supreme Court in May ruled in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [Cornell LII backgrounder] that Arizona's controversial employment-related immigration law is not preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) [JURIST report].

[T]here are reasonable grounds to believe that, in his role as Minister of the Interior and Special Representative of the President in Darfur and as an influential member of the Government of the Republic of the Sudan, Mr Hussein made essential contributions to the formulation and implementation of the common plan, inter alia, through the recruitment, arming and funding of the police forces and the Militia/Janjaweed in Darfur.

The ICC has now issued the fourth arrest warrant against high officials alleged to be involved in crimes committed in Darfur. Chief Prosecutor for the ICC Luis Moreno-Ocampo submitted an application [JURIST report] for the arrest warrant in December. The ICC has already issued warrants for Ahmad Muhammad Harun [arrest warrant, PDF], former Sudanese interior minister and current humanitarian affairs minister, President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir [case materials, PDF], and Ali Kushayb [arrest warrant, PDF], former senior Janjaweed commander. However, Sudan remains uncooperative [JURIST report] in pursuing alleged war criminals. ICC released a decision that asked the UN Security Council to take measures in compelling Sudan to comply its obligations under Resolution 1593 [text, PDF].

Apple is involved in litigation all over the world over smartphone technology. Earlier this week Apple won a suit against Motorola Mobility [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] in Germany preventing Motorola from enforcing a verdict [Bloomberg report] while Apple appeals that Apple must remove certain iPad and iPhone models from German online stores. Last month Apple requested that the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] grant a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung to block the company from selling its new phone, the Galaxy Nexus [official profile]. Apple requested an injunction, but was denied [JURIST report], against Samsung in the same court alleging that Samsung's "Galaxy" line of products copies Apple's iPhone and iPad technology. Earlier that month Apple brought suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California [official website] seeking an injunction to stop Motorola from bringing patent claims against Apple in Germany [JURIST report]. In December the US International Trade Commission (USITC) [official website] narrowly ruled for Apple [JURIST report] against HTC [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] on a patent infringement claim.

If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner's address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number ... [W]hat happened in this case was similar but even less intrusive, since a cell phone's phone number can be found without searching the phone's contents, unless the phone is password-protected—and on some cell phones even if it is.

Courts have had difficulty in applying Fourth Amendment protections to modern technology. In January the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled that the government's attachment of a global positioning system (GPS) [JURIST news archive] device to a vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search [JURIST report] under the Fourth Amendment. Last year the Supreme Court of California [official website] ruled that incident to a custodial arrest law enforcement officers may legally search text messages [JURIST report] on a suspect's cell phone without a warrant. The court held a search of the defendant's cell phone text messages in the police station 90 minutes after the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The California decision represents a split from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] 2010 ruling and a 2009 decision [JURST reports] by the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] that both held that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored on a cell phone. In June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] unanimously that an employer's search of private text messages on a work-issued device does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and is not excessive in scope.

In November the Sri Lankan government announced that it would begin investigating civilian casualties resulting form the civil war [JURIST report]. Earlier that month Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [official website] delivered its final report [JURIST report] on alleged abuses committed during the country's civil war to Rajapaksa. Also that 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 Rajapaksa 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.

For a free and diverse people, ... for a people of many faiths, ... for a people committed to the principle of religious freedom, ... the way forward is always to be found through greater respect for the equal rights of all; for the human dignity of all. Religious freedom was the very reason for our State's founding. At the heart of religious freedom is the freedom of individual conscience. If there is a thread that unites the story of our people, it is the thread of human dignity; the dignity of work; the dignity of family; the dignity of every child's home; the dignity of every individual. We are One Maryland, and all of us, at the end of the day, want the same thing for our children: to live in a loving, stable, committed home protected equally under the law.

The Maryland same-sex marriage law was passed more quickly than other states that have enacted similar laws. Maryland's Senate approved [JURIST report] the bill in a 25-22 vote last week after it was approved by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee [official website] the same week in a vote of 7-4 [JURIST report] and by the Maryland House of Delegates [official website] the week before in a vote of 72-67 [JURIST report]. Maryland became the eighth state that allows same-sex marriage along with Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports]. New Jersey is also considering legalizing same-sex marriage soon, although it currently has a civil union system in place.