It is the essence of what has been persuasively shown thus far in this case that a vital interest of the public will be harmed if the injunction is not maintained. The public interest is served by the temporary injunction, not harmed.

The Dane County Circuit Court ruled in a separate case Tuesday that Act 23 is unconstitutional [JURIST report] and issued a permanent injunction against it. The state attorney general said that this decision has also been appealed. There have also been two other challenges to the law. One challenge was filed [JURIST report] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Wisconsin and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty [advocacy websites] in a federal district court in December, claiming that it deprives citizens of voting rights in violation of the US Constitution. The Advancement Project [advocacy website] also filed a federal suit [JURIST report] in February on the grounds that the law is racially discriminatory.

If the Indonesian government wants to make an example out of these people, then it should free them as a symbol of its commitment to free expression. ... Instead, the legacy of the Papuan Congress crackdown will be five unjust convictions, while those responsible for the violence go unpunished.

The convictions come as part of the ongoing tension [BBC backgrounder] between the Indonesian government and the Papuan separatist movement, on which HRW published a report in 2007. In a July 2010 report HRW urged the Indonesian government to release secession activists [JURIST report] and adhere to international standards of free speech. "Prosecuting Political Aspiration: Indonesia's Political Prisoners" criticized the Indonesian government for its treatment of people imprisoned for peaceful political expression related to the Papuan [Economist backgrounder] and Moluccan [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] secession movements. In an unrelated situation, a Papuan tribe initiated a lawsuit [JURIST report] recently in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] against a mining company for alleged genocide.

The International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance [text] was signed [JURIST report] in 2007 by at least 57 countries, but has not been ratified by the required 20 to take effect. Mexico has signed and ratified this treaty, but it has not been endorsed by several countries including the US, England, Spain, Germany and Italy. In 2008 Guatemala started its first [JURIST report] civil war disappearance trial, while the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] has recently found Russia responsible [JURIST news archive] for numerous disappearances in Chechnya. The UN has also criticized Sri Lanka [JURIST report] for failure to address its problem of enforced disappearances

The claim against Saudi Arabia was dismissed [JURIST report] in 2008 by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because there was insufficient evidence that the Kingdom's princes had actual knowledge that their money was going to be used in the 9/11 attacks. Even after 10 years, cases brought by victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack against other governmental entities did not come to an end. In December, Iran denied the allegations [JURIST report] that it was actively involved in the terrorist attack after a default judgment [text, PDF; findings of facts and conclusions, PDF] in Havlish v. Bin Laden [case materials]. In June Judge Daniels dismissed 49 other terrorism lawsuits [JURIST report] based on lack of evidence.

Deepening militarisation of the province presents a threat to long-term peace and stability. Far in excess of any legitimate need to protect against an LTTE revival, the militarisation of the north is generating widespread fear and anger among Tamils: indeed, the strategy being executed runs the risk of inadvertently resurrecting what it seeks to crush once and for all - the possibility of violent Tamil insurrection. The construction of large and permanent military cantonments, the growing involvement of the military in agricultural and commercial activities, the seizure of large amounts of private and state land, and the army's role in determining reconstruction priorities are all serious concerns.

Controversy has surrounded both the actions of the Sri Lankan government towards the Tamil population and the LTTE during the civil. Earlier this week Amnesty International [advocacy website] released a report detailing the use of unlawful detentions [JURIST report] by the Sri Lankan government. The report also states that the LTTE commonly used abductions and torture during the civil war as well. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] is set to vote next week on a resolution backed by the US to hold Sri Lanka accountable for war crimes and demand Sri Lankan authorities "present a comprehensive action plan" [resolution text, PDF] which would detail steps they will take to end war crimes in the nation, including unlawful detentions. Last month thousands of Sri Lankans gathered to protest [JURIST report] the proposed resolution. In December Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission [official website] released a report announcing that the Sri Lanka military did not target civilians [JURIST report]. In November 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 Sri Lankan government ordered the killing of surrendering rebel leaders during the civil war. In April a UN report accused both the Sri Lankan government and rebels of war crimes [JURIST report] during the final stages of the country's civil war with the LTTE.

The Mississippi law comes on the heels of other controversial immigration reforms proposed in many states following the Arizona law. Similar legislation has passed in Utah, South Carolina and Indiana [JURIST reports]. Last week the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard arguments [JURIST report] to challenge immigration legislation recently passed in Alabama and Georgia, but the court postponed its ruling until after the Supreme Court decides on the Arizona law. 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 [official website] urged the Supreme Court not to hear [JURIST report] Arizona's appeal. In what many view as an indication of how the Supreme Court may rule, the court ruled in May 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 [JURIST report].