Given the lack of transparency in court proceedings, major concerns remain about due process and fairness of trials in cases involving the death penalty in Iran. Under international law, the death penalty is the most extreme form of punishment, which, if it is used at all, should be imposed only for the most serious crimes. Defendants in death penalty cases should also receive fair trial guarantees stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Iran in 1975. Any death sentence undertaken in contravention of those international obligations is tantamount to an arbitrary execution.

Iran has been criticized for its detentions and harsh sentences, especially against human rights defenders. Last week, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy [official website] and Vice President of the Commission Catherine Ashton [official profile] criticized [JURIST report] the country for its treatment of minorities and demanded an immediate halt to its discriminatory policies. In May, a group of UN human rights experts called on Iran [JURIST report] to grant human rights defenders the opportunity to carry out their legitimate activities and to take measures so that they receive adequate protections. In January 2011, the prominent Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced [JURIST report] to 11 years for "acting against national security" and "making propaganda against the system." She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested and executed [JURIST report] for his role in the post-election protests on charges of being an enemy of God.

Other countries have attempted to enact laws that would restrict protesters from exercising their rights to free expression and peaceful assembly. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] earlier this month that Moldova violated the rights to peaceful assembly and to be free from discrimination by banning gay groups from protesting in front of the country's parliament. Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website, in Russian] signed [JURIST report] a controversial law that would increase the penalties imposed on protesters who violate demonstration regulations. The law had been approved [JURIST report] by both houses of the Russian parliament two days earlier. In March, Swiss voters passed a law [JURIST report] similar to Quebec's proposed legislation. The law imposes heavy fines amounting to 100,000 Swiss Francs (USD $110,000) for people who protest without prior governmental authorization.

Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle ... Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. But the Stolen Valor Act is not so limited in its reach. Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court's cases or in our constitutional tradition.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the opinion, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In his opinion, Alito said he would uphold the law in keeping with the tradition of barring other serious untruths, including fraud, perjury and defamation: "The lies covered by the Stolen Valor Act have no intrinsic value and thus merit no First Amendment protection." The court's decision upheld a ruling [JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the law. The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in February.

Despite Plaintiffs' diligent efforts since the Act was passed, it is impossible for them to comply with the new admitting privileges requirement by July 1, 2012. Upon information and belief, the Clinic is the only abortion provider in Mississippi. Thus, absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs will be forced to stop providing abortion care to women in Mississippi as of July 1, 2012, leaving those women with nowhere else to turn. For these reasons, the Act will endanger the health of women in Mississippi and violate their constitutional rights.

This is the latest development in the ongoing reproductive rights controversy [JURIST backgrounder]. Last week, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt appealed a ruling [JURIST report] by a district court judge that held that an abortion ultrasound bill is unconstitutional. Earlier this month, Louisiana Governor Bob Jindal signed a bill increasing abortion restrictions in the state. In May, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs [JURIST report] that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy. Earlier that month, a judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled [JURIST report] that a law restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. In April, the Arizona House of Representatives approved a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks [JURIST report] into a pregnancy, with an exception carved out only for medical emergencies. In March, Utah passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours [JURIST report] prior to obtaining the procedure.

[T]he rule of law ultimately comes down to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities—including the State itself—are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated—and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It entails supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, and fairness in the application of law. It speaks to separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.

On Tuesday, while commemorating the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture [official website], UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] urged [JURIST report] the international community to take measures to stop torture by numerous states against their own citizens. Last week, the new Senegalese government was urged to adopt fresh measures [JURIST report] to protect and promote human rights by addressing the impunity that undermines the judicial system and rule of law in the country. Amnesty International [advocacy website] found that the government was using torture and other similar methods to stop protesters and civilians as well as journalists and political opponents. Syria has also been subject to criticism by UN experts [JURIST report] and human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] for its use of torture against civilians. It was reported [JURIST report] that Syria was even sexually abusing detainees regardless of gender and age. Even Canada was condemned [JURIST report] earlier this month for being complicit in rights violations against three Canadians who were held prisoner in Syria. The Canadian government dismissed [JURIST report] the criticism six days later. Exactly two years ago, Pillay pledged justice for torture victims [JURIST report], noted that democracies with a rule of law in place still maintain amnesties that prevent torturers from being brought to justice and promised that the international criminal tribunals and the ICC will continue to prosecute those responsible for torture.

This is the latest development in the ongoing reproductive rights controversy [JURIST backgrounder]. Last week, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt appealed a ruling [JURIST report] by a district court judge that held that an abortion ultrasound bill is unconstitutional. Earlier this month, Louisiana Governor Bob Jindal signed a bill increasing abortion restrictions in the state [JURIST report]. In May, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs [JURIST report] that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy. Earlier that month, a judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled [JURIST report] that a law restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. In April, the Arizona House of Representatives approved a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks [JURIST report] into a pregnancy, with an exception carved out only for medical emergencies. In March, Utah passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours [JURIST report] prior to obtaining the procedure.

If Israeli authorities want to respect their international legal obligations, they will freeze the demolition orders against Palestinians in Susiya and ensure that Salim and his wife and children no longer live in fear of having their home and well-being demolished by Israeli bulldozers.

West Bank settlements have sparked tension between Israel and Palestinian authorities as well as criticism by international groups despite the Israeli parliament's vote [JURIST report] against legalizing the unauthorized settlement earlier this month. The vote was in response to the country's Supreme Court [official website, in Hebrew] decision [JURIST report] ordering the 30 apartments in Ulpana neighborhood to be destroyed by July 1. Last week, the UN Special Rapporteur [official website] on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Frank La Rue reported [JURIST report] that people in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are limited in free expression due to lack of protection. Israel responded to international investigations into these settlements by announcing [JURIST report] in March that it will sever ties to the UNHRC. The announcement came after the UN body initiated its investigation to determine the effect that Israeli settlements have had on the civil, political, economic and cultural rights of the Palestinian people. Israel argued that this investigation was founded on bias against Israel. A month before, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] had urged [JURIST report] Israel to amend its policies that forbid Palestinians from traveling through and living in Gaza and the West Bank. Even in March 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called [JURIST report] in a press conference Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank "illegal."

Prison overcrowding is a common problem across the globe. Last week UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-wha Kang [official profile] urged [JURIST report] the government of Malawi to address the problem of prison overcrowding and improve the human rights condition in the country. In April, South Africa announced [JURIST report] that it will issue pardons to 35,000 offenders in order to ease prison overcrowding. Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] in February urged Latin American countries to improve their prison conditions and called [JURIST report] for a reduction of prison population after a fire killed more than 300 inmates of a prison in Honduras. In August, Venezuela announced [JURIST report] its plan to reduce its prison population by 40 percent. The prisons in the US are facing the same problem. In May 2011 the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report in Brown v. Plata [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] to uphold an order requiring California to release up to 46,000 prisoners to address the problem of prison overcrowding.

While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito entered a dissenting opinion concluding that the PPACA should be struck down in its entirety. The dissenting justices found that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional invasion into the private lives of citizens. In their dissenting opinion, the justices found that the individual mandate provision of the PPACA is not a tax, and is not supported under the Commerce Power:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available. The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. ... The Court's disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them.

In March, New Hampshire's House approved [JURIST report] another bill [HB 1660] that would prohibit abortion procedures after the twentieth week of pregnancy. The state's legislature had also overridden the governor's veto and approved a bill [HB 0329] that would require health care providers to notify parents or a judge 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor. In March, numerous states approved bills that would place additional restrictions on abortions. The Arizona State Senate [official website] approved [JURIST report] a similar bill [HB 2036 materials] as New Hampshire that would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. A few days earlier Utah Governor Gary Herbert [official website] signed [JURIST report] a bill [HB 461] into law that extends the waiting period for women seeking abortion from 24 to 72 hours. The Idaho State Senate [official website] approved [JURIST report] a bill [SB 1349, PDF] that would require women seeking abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell [official website] signed [JURIST report] a similar bill [HB 462] earlier that month.

The ICTY closed the contempt trial [JURIST report] against Seselj last week. Seselj consistently argued that the ICTY is biased and violating his right to a fair trial. In March, he argued that the tribunal is biased and does not have jurisdiction over his case, a week after the prosecution asked the court [JURIST reports] for a 28-year prison sentence against him. In January, Seselj sued the ICTY [JURIST report] for $2.6 million in damages due to alleged unreasonable delays in his trial, alleging that the tribunal failed to give him materials in Serbian; denied him communication with family members, doctors and legal counsel; delayed his trial interminably; and refused him a right to his own, independent counsel.

Earlier this month, the ICTY judges in Karadic's case went on a five-day visit of locations relevant to his alleged crimes [JURIST report]. The delegates visited Srebrenica and BiH, as well as its surrounding areas. This visit came just months after the ICTY sentenced former president of the municipality of Sokolac, BiH, Milan Tupajic to two months in prison for refusing to testify against Karadzic [JURIST report]. In February, former Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army, Ratko Mladic accused the ICTY of being biased [JURIST report]. In January, the ICTY accepted a plea deal [JURIST report], in the trial of the former case manager for Bosnian war criminal Milan Lukic, convicting her of five counts of contempt for procuring false witness statements. In December, the ICTY convicted former Yugoslav intelligence officer Dragomir Pecanac of contempt [JURIST report] for failing to testify before the tribunal.

Berlusconi has been a defendant in nearly 50 cases. In February, a Milan court dismissed [JURIST report] corruption charges against Berlusconi. He had been accused of bribing his British tax lawyer, David Mills, to lie in two trials relating to his holding company Fininvest in the 1990s. During the same month, the prosecution of Rome, La Procura di Roma, had asked [JURIST report] the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma [official website, in Italian] to place the former PM on trial for tax evasion. He also faces trial on wiretap charges by publishing the transcript of a tapped phone conversation, trial on fraud charges and trial on abuse of power and underage prostitution charges [JURIST reports].

Tension between Bahrain's government and protesters has escalated recently. Last week, pro-democracy activist Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] ended his hunger strike [JURIST report] weeks after he and 20 other incarcerated protestors were granted a retrial [JURIST report] by a Bahrain appeals court. Last month, Al-Khawaja's daughter, Zainab Al-Khawaja, was sentenced [JURIST report] to one month in prison for trying to organize an anti-government protest. Earlier in May, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called for the immediate release [JURIST report] of the leader's of last year's anti-government protests, including Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. In April, HRW issued a report claiming that Bahraini police were abusing detained protesters [JURIST report]. Earlier in April, Amnesty International [advocacy website] declared that Bahrain's government committed human rights violations [JURIST report] against anti-government protesters.