Indefinite detention is not an option. Detained men must be afforded fair trials or released. It is long past the time for impunity at Guantanamo to end, and for the closure of Guantanamo to be addressed. Today's IACHR decision is a step in that direction.

The US has been widely criticized for its policies relating to Guantanamo and indefinite detention. In January UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed disappointment [JURIST report] that the US government has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Also that month the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [official website] criticized the US human rights record [JURIST report], including the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees. In August former detainee David Hicks [JURIST news archive], an Australian national, filed an appeal [JURIST report] with the UN Human Rights Committee [official website] complaining of multiple violations of international law stemming from his five-year incarceration at Guantanamo from 2002 to 2007. In January 2011 Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] President Barack Obama make greater efforts to close Guantanamo Bay despite congressional opposition.

Absent evidence of viewpoint discrimination, perhaps it is enough that the State of Wisconsin merely chose a dividing line between two classes of unions and applied it evenhandedly, but the court has difficulty with that result where the only apparent reason for discriminating between the entities is their different viewpoints. Indeed, the very reason proffered by the Supreme Court in Ysursa for not interfering in an outright ban on all political payroll deductions for public unions—the State's interest in avoiding the reality or appearance of favoritism or entanglement with partisan politics—is the very reason this court cannot uphold the State of Wisconsin's apparent, if not actual, favoritism and entanglement in partisan politics by discriminating in favor of fundraising efforts on behalf of public safety unions over general employee unions.

The Budget Repair Bill requires state employees to contribute a percentage of their salaries to their pension and health care premiums, and eliminates the ability of public employee union members to collectively negotiate anything but wage increase, which will be capped by the Consumer Price Index. The Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST repor] the Budget Repair Bill in June, overruling the Dane County Circuit Court [official website] finding [JURIST report] that legislators had violated the "open meetings" rule. In March, the Dane County Circuit Court judge temporarily enjoined the law from being published, and then issued an order [JURIST reports] clarifying that the temporary restraining order prohibits not only publication of the bill, but implementation of its provisions as well. The judge's temporary restraining order stemmed from a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed earlier in March by District Attorney Ismael Ozanne claiming that Republican legislators passed the bill in violation of Wisconsin's open meetings law. Walker signed [JURIST report] the bill into law on March 11.

Several other individuals are facing charges in Rwandan courts for their involvement in the genocide. In February, the ICTR decided to transfer the case of Fulgence Kayishema to the Rwandan authorities [JURIST report]. Kayishema, former Judicial Police Inspector of Kivumu Commune in Kibuye Prefecture, was charged and indicted in absentia for his involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, but he has remained at large. Also in February, war crimes suspect Leon Mugesera was charged with genocide planning, incitement and distribution of arms [JURIST report] in a Kigali court in Rwanda. He was deported from Canada to Rwanda following a 16-year battle in the Canadian court system in which Mugesera attempted to stay in Canada. A speech he made before the Rwandan genocide began, in which he equated Tutsis to cockroaches, is credited with having been the driving force behind the genocide.

We deplore the violent criminal act that took the life of this young man and urge the Chilean Congress to pass a law against discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, in full compliance with relevant international human rights standards. ... We also urge Chile to enact hate crime legislation that establishes hatred based on various grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity, as an aggravating factor for the purposes of criminal prosecution.

Discrimination because on sexual orientation has been an ongoing issue in many countries. Earlier this month the UN Human Rights Council urged member states to put an end to sexual orientation-based violence [JURIST report] and discrimination. In a video address, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged that sexual orientation and gender identity are sensitive subjects, but said action needs to be taken because lives are at stake. The Russian lower house of Parliament, the State Duma, is considering a controversial bill that bans the spread of "homosexual propaganda" to minors [JURIST report]. The bill calls for fines of up to 500,000 rubles (USD $16,500) for promoting the homosexual lifestyle and appears to be aimed at media outlets which lawmakers blame for "promoting gay lifestyles as 'normal behavior.'"

As previously mentioned, due to general economic circumstances completely outside of our control, we are anticipating a significant reduction in funding (meaning several tens of thousands of dollars) from our primary benefactors for our next fiscal year. If not offset, this reduction has the potential to directly affect JURIST's ability to maintain its current operations. This fund drive is one of the efforts that we've recently launched to try to make up the shortfall.

Please consider donating to JURIST. Even if you are not in a position to give much, please keep in mind that small donations - $25, or even $10 - can go a long way. One of JURIST's strengths is in the number of people it touches every day, from readers to staff to alumni. If everyone of those people could give just a small amount, JURIST would never have to worry about funding again. We know that not everyone is in a position to give, but if you can, even a small amount can make a big difference. For those of you that are able to give more, please know that JURIST will recognize all donors that give $100 or more on its website at jurist.org/supportjurist/honorroll.php.

Thank you - we greatly appreciate your support!