In interpreting and applying article 12 of the Rome Statute, the Office has assessed that it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations or the Assembly of States Parties to make the legal determination whether Palestine qualifies as a State for the purpose of acceding to the Rome Statute and thereby enabling the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under article 12(1). The Rome Statute provides no authority for the Office of the Prosecutor to adopt a method to define the term "State" under article 12(3) which would be at variance with that established for the purpose of article 12(1).

The tension and problems arising out of the Gaza conflict is still ongoing. In February Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Israel to change [JURIST report] its policies of forbidding Palestinians from traveling through and living in Gaza and the West Bank. Its report demonstrated that due to the policies, families are kept separate since some are trapped inside Israel while their family members are forbidden from entering. In January of last year, UN officials alleged [JURIST report] that Israeli authorities engaged in illegal activities including the killing of four Palestinians. In 2010, Israeli Ambassador to the UN called for an end [JURIST report] to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] investigation into Israeli actions during the 2008-2009 Gaza campaign. Early in 2010, the UN extended [JURIST report] the time limit for Israelis and Palestinians to finish their investigation into alleged human rights violation committed during the Gaza conflict after it initially adopted a resolution [JURIST report] giving them three months. In 2009, the UN found evidence [JURIST report] that both parties committed war crimes.

Bangladeshi officials established the tribunal [JURIST report] in March 2010 to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the Bangladesh Liberation War, during which officials estimate that Pakistani soldiers and local militia participated in more than three million killings and 200,000 rapes. The tribunal includes three high court judges and six investigators retired from civilian, law enforcement and military careers. In January, the ICTB ordered the arrest [JURIST report] of Ghulam Azam, 89, for alleged crimes against humanity. Azam, who opposed the independence of Bangladesh and allegedly aided the Pakistani Army during the war, said that the charges were politically motivated. In November the ICTB began its first trial [JURIST report] in a case against Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a former member of Parliament in the National Assembly of Bangladesh [official website, in Bengali] and one of the former leaders of JI. He has been charged with 20 crimes contained in the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 [text, PDF] including genocide, arson, rape and torture. If Sayedee is found guilty, he will face the death penalty.

Last month, Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo led Malian soldiers in a military coup [JURIST report] to overthrow the 20-year-old democracy of President Toure. The coup arose from the group's belief that Toure had failed to properly respond to Islamic rebel attacks, made primarily by Tuareg nomads, in the north of the country. The situation worsened only 10 days later, however, when Tuareg rebels took control [AP report] of three northern cities and pushed out Malian military forces. The UNHCR has maintained a close watch of the Mali situation, and last month reported that more than 80,000 people had fled [press release] the country to escape the fighting. In February, the UNHCR requested additional funds and resources [report, PDF] to deal with the crisis, just after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] expressed concern [statement] about the growing number of refugees in the region. The Tuareg rebels initially attacked Malian soldiers [Al Jazeera report] in January, which has incited back-and-forth fighting throughout the northern regions of the country ever since.

In each couple [in the lawsuit], one spouse is an American citizen and the other spouse a foreign national. If they were different-sex couples, the federal government would recognize the American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse and place the foreign spouse on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship. Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples, however, these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated bi-national couples.

DOMA, which excludes same-sex marriage from recognition under federal law, has been a subject of great controversy recently. Last week, the Obama administration sought expedited review [JURIST report] from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] for two test cases challenging DOMA's constitutionality. In February, a group of US lawmakers planned to appeal [JURIST report] the trial court ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples. In November, the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] voted to repeal DOMA [JURIST report] marking the first time a Congressional group has voted to repeal the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In October, a disabled Navy veteran filed a notice of appeal [JURIST report] with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [official website] for denying her partner a share of her disability benefits under DOMA. The Department of Veterans Affairs [official website] allegedly told the veteran she could not receive benefits because her spouse was a woman.

The CFTC has been tasked with regulating the derivatives market as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [text, PDF]. The Act was signed into law [JURIST report] by President Barack Obama in July 2010 and created the new regulatory council to monitor financial institutions in order to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail." In addition to creating the US Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), the legislation also gives the Federal Reserve [official websites] new oversight over the largest financial institutions, creates a bureau of consumer protection, introduces multitudes of new regulations on derivatives and other financial instruments and limits the amount of capital banks can invest in hedge funds. JURIST contributor Andrew Cali-Vasquez argues that position limit regulations may carry unexpected consequences [JURIST op-ed] that "could impinge upon the operations of domestic businesses by reducing the availability of financing."

In October California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed [JURIST report] a bill [text, PDF] that would have effectively overturned Proposition 209 by allowing UC schools to consider demographic factors such as race during the admissions process. The governor said in his veto message to the Senate that although he agreed with the bill's purpose, it is the role of the Ninth Circuit to decide Proposition 209's boundaries. Brown previously contested [opinion letter, PDF; JURIST report] Proposition 209 in 2009 as California's Attorney General. The CDAA's suit was originally dismissed in December 2010 by the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenneger [text, PDF].

Google is also facing both international and national criticism over its privacy policy. Last month, a Japanese court ordered Google to remove certain search terms [JURIST report] that a Japanese man claimed violated his privacy, by suggesting his name in connection with crimes he did not commit. Also last month, the Commission Nationales de l'Informatque (CNIL) [official website], France's data protection regulator, gave Google three weeks to answer questions [JURIST report] about its new privacy policy [text] as part of a Europe-wide investigation on behalf of all European data protection regulators. The new policy, which took effect earlier in March, may violate European law [JURIST report] according to the EU's Justice Commissioner Vice-President Viviane Reding [official website]. In February, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed [JURIST report] a suit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [advocacy website], a consumer privacy group, asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to block Google's proposed privacy policy changes. The new policy allows a user's information to be shared among different Google products, including YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps.

In raising the above concerns, Amnesty International does not seek to minimize the challenges faced by prison personnel when called upon to deal with disruptive, dangerous or disturbed individuals. However, all security and disciplinary measures must be consistent with states' obligation under international law to treat all prisoners humanely. Amnesty International considers that the conditions in SMU and other Maximum custody isolation facilities—including confinement to enclosed or windowless cells, lack of access to natural light and fresh air, lack of exercise, lack of educational and rehabilitation programs, and social isolation—are contrary to international standards for humane treatment; the cumulative effects of such conditions, particularly when imposed for a prolonged or indefinite period, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of international law.

US prisons have been criticized for conditions leading to human rights abuses and overcrowding. In January, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released its annual World Report and criticized US illegal detention programs [JURIST report], pointing to extreme prisoner rights abuses and a high level of incarceration of illegal immigrants and racial minorities. A week earlier, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) [official website] criticized the US human rights record, including the indefinite detention [JURIST report] of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] detainees, in a report that called the situation in Guantanamo "the main outstanding [human rights] issue" in the US. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata [Cornell LII backgrounder] to uphold an order requiring California to release up to 46,000 prisoners [JURIST report] to remedy the state's overcrowded prisons [JURIST news archive].

Without absolute immunity, the truth-seeking process would be impaired as witnesses might be reluctant to testify, and even a witness who took the stand "might be inclined to shade his testimony in favor of the potential plaintiff" for "fear of subsequent liability." ... These factors apply with equal force to grand jury witnesses. In both contexts, a witness' fear of retaliatory litigation may deprive the tribunal of critical evidence. And in neither context is the deterrent of potential civil liability needed to prevent false testimony because other sanctions, chiefly prosecution for perjury, provide a sufficient deterrent.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in March 2011. Petitioner Rehberg asked the court to clarify the application of two conflicting Supreme Court precedents in Briscoe v. Lahue and Malley v. Briggs. In Briscoe, the court held that a police officer who allegedly committed perjury was immune from civil liability. However, in Malley, the court allowed a suit against a police officer for wrongfully causing an arrest warrant to be issued, reasoning that the officer was acting as a "complaining witness." The circuit courts were split over which precedent to apply when a government official provides testimony as a complaining witness.

Smartphone technology using the Android OS has been litigated all over the world. In February Apple [corporate website] requested that the US District Court for the Northern District of California grant a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung to block the company from selling its new phone which uses the Android OS, the Galaxy Nexus [official profile]. Apple requested a separate injunction against Samsung in the same court alleging that Samsung's "Galaxy" line of products copies Apple's iPhone and iPad technology, but was denied [JURIST report]. Google's new privacy policy, which came into effect last month, has come under scrutiny [JURIST report] as well. EU data authorities are concerned about the sharing and combination of personal data across services and its compliance with European data protection legislation.