Tobacco labeling and promotion of consumer awareness have led to controversy recently. In April, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] over the constitutionality of new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations requiring cigarette packaging and advertisements to display more prominent graphic health warning labels. In March, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that the graphic cigarette label warnings were constitutional, holding that the warnings provide undisputed factual information about the health risks of using tobacco products. President Barack Obama [official website] signed [JURIST report] the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) into law in 2009, granting the FDA certain authority to regulate manufactured tobacco products. The legislation heightens warning-label requirements, prohibits marketing "light cigarettes" as a healthier alternative and allows regulation of cigarette ingredients.

Human rights journalists and media workers around the world are facing harassment and threats without adequate protection by local authorities. Earlier this month Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the Sudanese government to cease its press censorship. The government engaged in such activities by seizing newspapers from the printing press or arresting journalists for publishing controversial stories. In early May UNESCO expressed concern over the murder of a Mexican journalist who was found in Veracruz despite the effort by the Mexican government to protect [JURIST reports] this group through legislation. In March UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya [official website] outlined [JURIST report] the risks and challenges faced by human rights journalists and media workers and called for heightened protection. In September Bokova condemned [JURIST report] Syria for its continued practice of torturing and detaining journalists in an effort to undermine the freedom of expression.

This ballot proposal is incredibly troubling because it asks voters to put an amendment in the constitution in a manner that is misleading, confusing and unclear. Voting is one of the most important rights we have, and this amendment aims to take away that right from the most vulnerable, under the guise of a seemingly innocuous photo ID requirement.

There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, but the issue remains controversial. Earlier this month, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed Virginia's new voter ID legislation, which will require voters to show one form of acceptable identification [JURIST report] in order to cast a vote. Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed a bill requiring voters to present photo identification [JURIST report] in the upcoming November election. Also in March, a Wisconsin judge ruled unconstitutional [JURIST report] the state's voter ID law requiring a voter to display photo ID when entering a polling place to vote. In February, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson filed suit against the US Department of Justice (DOJ) over its ruling that barred South Carolina [JURIST reports] from enforcing its voter ID law. In November, Mississippi voters approved a ballot measure [JURIST report] to implement a voter ID law.

Since controversy arose over the killing of Bin Laden [JURIST report] by US forces in Pakistan last May, Pakistan's alliance with the US has been questioned. In December the Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] formed a judicial committee to investigate a secret memo sent from an unknown Pakistani source to US Admiral Mike Mullen in May asking for help in preventing a suspected army coup. Former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari [BBC profile] have been accused of writing or having knowledge of the memo, and both have denied these allegations. The growing conflict between the US and Pakistan was analyzed by JURIST guest columnist Sikander Ahmed Shah in Drone Strikes in Pakistan: Examining Consent in International Law [JURIST op-ed]. Pakistan has also faced an ongoing struggle with corruption that the courts have attempted to battle.

Illinois was the seventh US jurisdiction to legalize same-sex civil unions, but it has not yet joined the nine jurisdictions that have legalized same-sex marriage. In March, Maryland legalized same-sex marriage, joining Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports]. On the other hand, North Carolina voters approved [JURIST report] earlier this month a constitutional amendment [Amendment 1, PDF] to ban same-sex marriage. In February, the Wyoming Senate approved [JURIST report] a bill that would deny recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other jurisdictions. New Jersey is still struggling to pass the same-sex marriage bill because Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed the bill [JURIST report] and called for a voter referendum to decide the issue, rather than the state legislature.

Respect for the rule of law, due process and fair trial standards are among the foundations of a democratic State; without these, a democratic State cannot prosper, and public faith in the Government and its institutions will be undermined. The causes of the problems facing Iraq's judicial and law enforcement systems are complex and diverse, not least of which is a culture of abuse stemming from years of dictatorship and conflict. Under-resourcing also leads to an environment where abuses can take place, including poor hygiene and low standards of detention facilities, lack of access to legal counsel, and lengthy pre trial detention.

Human rights violations did not cease even after the dictatorship that marked persistent violence in Iraq ended. Earlier in May, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] reported [JURIST report] that mass arrests and incommunicado detentions continue in Baghdad's prison that was planned to be closed. In 2011, UNAMI and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] reported [JURIST report] that human rights violations continue in several regions of Iraq. Law enforcement and the judiciary system has remained weak while torture and abuse of detainees persisted within prison walls. Similar findings were made several months earlier by Amnesty International [advocacy website] in its report [text, PDF] revealing [JURIST report] that governmental authorities shot and killed protesters while detaining and torturing political activists. In 2010, it also reported [JURIST report] on the government's unlawful arrests and tortures against thousands of detainees.

Abortion rights have been a contentious issue in the international community. In September, voters in Liechtenstein rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to legalize abortion in the country after the acting Head of State expressed displeasure with the law and threatened to veto the proposed change. In August 2010, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] criticized [JURIST report] the restrictive abortion laws of the Philippines as a "human rights crisis," resulting in the death of thousands of women annually. In January 2010, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] argued that Ireland's restrictive abortion laws increase health risks to women [JURIST report] and expose them to deliberate misinformation about abortion procedures. In July 2009, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] called on Nicaragua to end its total ban on abortions [JURIST report], calling for the country to eliminate severe criminal punishments for those who seek or perform abortions.

The recent massacre diminished the hope for the success of the peace plan [text, PDF] that was laid out by Kofi Annan [official profile], Joint Special Envoy of the UN and the League of Arab States. Last Thursday the UN's three-member Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria released [JURIST report] a report [text, PDF] that alleged Syrian security forces as well as anti-government groups are responsible for the continuing violence in Syria including torture of children. Syria has been urged to end the escalating violence against civilians that started in March of last year. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released numerous reports alleging that Syrian government forces committed war crimes against civilians and thereby violated human rights within the last few months. In early May, HRW reported [JURIST report] such violation when government forces killed at least 95 civilians in the province of Idlib during ceasefire negotiations. In April, HRW released [JURIST report] a report showing that Syrian security forces have executed more than 100 civilians and opposition fighters.

Hosni Mubarak's trial started [JURIST report] in August 2011 and has been making slow progress. In January, the chief prosecutor in the case gave his closing remarks [JURIST report] and again asked the presiding judge, Ahmed Refaat, to give the death penalty [JURIST report] to Mubarak and some of his associates. The trial resumed in December in the Egyptian court after a two-month adjournment [JURIST reports] allowing the court time to rule on a motion made by lawyers representing the victims' families to have the three-judge panel in the case removed. The victims' families argued that they were not given enough time to question the Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi [GlobalSecurity profile], head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) [NYT backgrounder], who testified against Mubarak [JURIST report] in a closed session in September 2011, but left early and refused to be cross-examined by counsel of the victims.

Thailand's Computer Crimes Act has been heavily criticized in the past. In October, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue [official website] condemned [JURIST report] the law for putting right to freedom of opinion and expression in stake in exchange for further enforcing the insult law. In 2009, a Thai criminal court sentenced [JURIST report] a political activist to 18 years imprisonment for insulting the royal family. The judge hearing the case had the trial closed for security reasons which Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] opposed. It called [JURIST report] for a public trial because there was no reasonable national security reason for a closed trial which involved an individual who made insulting remarks about the royal family.

The bill creating the National Human Rights Commission contains many positive elements to promote and protect human rights in Pakistan, Human Rights Watch said. The commission would be an independent body, with members appointed by a cross-party parliamentary committee. Its responsibilities would include monitoring the general human rights situation in Pakistan, investigating specific human rights violations, [and] making recommendations to the government...But a commission that cannot take on cases involving the army and intelligence agencies would perpetuate a cruel joke on Pakistanis whose rights have been violated.

Pakistan has faced criticism for human rights issues recently. Earlier this month, a group of three UN human rights experts implored Pakistan to increase efforts to curb sectarian violence [JURIST report], noting a recent uptick in sectarian-related attacks. Last April, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan [official website], a non-government organization, harshly criticized the Pakistani government [JURIST report] for its poor human rights record and called on government officials to fix the human rights abuses occurring in the country. Earlier that month, the US Department of State (DOS) [official website] released [JURIST report] the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials]. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan [materials] were criticized for their conduct in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda; however, the 2008 Pakistani elections [JURIST report] were deemed "competitive and reflective of the people's will," restoring democratic rule and leading to some human rights progress.

Wednesday's sentence seemed not to be heavily affected by Taylor's request [JURIST report] earlier this month that the court sentence him based on "reconciliation, not retribution." He expressed [transcript, PDF] sadness for the death of civilians during the civil war, but he stated that he was not responsible for the actions committed by the rebel forces, contrary to the sentencing judgment. However, the term of imprisonment was 30 years shorter than what the prosecutors initially demanded. A week before Taylor's request, the prosecution asked the court for a 80-year sentence against Taylor after he was convicted [JURIST reports] in April on all 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Mbarushimana was released from ICC custody in December. The ICC rejected the prosecution's request that it suspend an order to release Mbarushimana after Pre-Trial Chamber I declined to confirm charges [JURIST reports] against him earlier that month. Mbarushimana was ordered to stand trial [JURIST report] at The Hague by a French court in 2010. In 2008 he was arrested [JURIST report] in Germany trying flee to Russia. In 2005, the UN asked France [JURIST report] to bring charges against Mbarushimana, who was living with refugee status in the country. At the time the former prosecutor for the ICC said that it did not file charges because there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

The parties debate at some length the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, pre-Code practices, and the merits of credit-bidding. To varying extents, some of those debates also occupied the attention of the Courts of Appeals that considered the question presented here. But nothing in the generalized statutory purpose of protecting secured creditors can overcome the specific manner of that protection which the text of §1129(b)(2)(A) contains. As for pre-Code practices, they can be relevant to the interpretation of an ambiguous text, but we find no textual ambiguity here. And the pros and cons of credit-bidding are for the consideration of Congress, not the courts. The Bankruptcy Code standardizes an expansive (and sometimes unruly) area of law, and it is our obligation to interpret the Code clearly and predictably using well established principles of statutory construction. Under that approach, this is an easy case. Because the RadLAX debtors may not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of the Bank's lien, but does not permit the Bank to credit-bid at the sale, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in December and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] last month. It affirmed the decision [opinion text] of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.