The SWC had already called on [JURIST report] the Hungarian government to prosecute the Nazi war criminal when it issued its annual report [text, PDF; press release] in April. Nazi prosecution continues regardless of the ages of the criminals. In January, the Ingolstadt Prosecutor's Office [official website, in German] filed a motion [JURIST report] to jail Klaas Faber, a Dutch native who fled to Germany after being convicted in the Netherlands in 1947 of Nazi war crimes. Faber, 90, was accused of having participated in 22 murders and aiding the Nazis during their occupation of the Netherlands. Germany reopened investigations into former Nazi death camp guards in October, which stemmed from the conviction of John Demjanjuk [JURIST reports], a former guard at a camp in Poland who was deported to Germany to stand trial for his alleged Nazi crimes. Last September, alleged Nazi Sandor Kepiro died while he awaited an appeal [JURIST report] on his acquittal on war crimes charges. Another convicted Nazi commander, Josef Scheungraber, is likely not able to serve [JURIST report] his life sentence due to his mental health issues.

Carroza ordered Allende's body exhumed last year as part of investigations into his death [JURIST report] that began in January 2010. Allende, a Marxist, was met with opposition after winning the 1970 elections in Chile from those fearing his presidency would support a pro-Soviet communist government. The 1973 coup, backed by the US, was followed by a 17-year military regime lead by Pinochet. In an extraordinary statement released on his 91st birthday Pinochet publicly assumed "full political responsibility" [JURIST report] for the actions of his military regime. Pinochet nonetheless justified the military coup against Allende that brought him to power as having being necessary to preserve Chile's integrity amid "the continuation and worsening of the worse political and economic crisis than one can remember." Pinochet died [JURIST report] in 2006 at the age of 91 without ever facing trial for multiple human rights abuses and tax evasion charges against him.

Since 2001, and routinely since 2009, the United States has carried out deliberate and premeditated killings of suspected terrorists overseas. The US practice of "targeted killing" has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines. These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts. This case concerns the role of Defendants ... in authorizing and directing the killing of three American citizens in Yemen last year. The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all US citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law.

Awlaki, a dual US-Yemeni citizen, had been approved for targeting killing by the Obama administration, an action that was challenged based on Awlaki's US citizenship. In December 2010, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST reports] challenging the Obama administration's ability to conduct "targeted killings" in al-Awlaki's case. Judge John Bates found that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case, filed by the ACLU and the CCR on behalf of Awlaki's father, dismissing it on procedural grounds and noting that important questions remain. Bates heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November 2010 on the same day Awlaki called for jihadist attacks on US citizens in a video posted on extremist websites. Earlier that month Yemeni prosecutors charged [JURIST report] Awlaki with incitement to kill foreigners, and he was later sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison.

AI and HRW in late April called on the UAE to stop the recent crackdown on political activists [JURIST report] by ending arrests and releasing those already in custody, expressing concern that the UAE is threatening to revoke prisoners' citizenship as a way of punishing them for expressing public dissent, an action that the advocacy groups contend violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text]. AI has previously called on the UAE government [press release] to release such "prisoners of conscience" in compliance with international law. Last November the UAE Federal Supreme Court imprisoned five activists [JURIST report] for participating in a campaign seeking political liberties. All five were charged under § 176 of the UAE Penal Code for publicly insulting UAE President Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed [official website] and other government officials, and were arrested in April 2011 after signing an online petition demanding political reforms. HRW has also been critical of the UAE for its recent treatment of political activists [JURIST report]. HRW criticized UAE officials in April 2011 for their arrest of a political blogger, and urged international public institutions [press releases] to condemn the government's detention of other rights activists.

There are now 30 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 15 states that require photo ID, and the issue remains controversial. Earlier this month Michigan Governor Rick Snyder vetoed several measures [JURIST report] that included amendments to the state's election laws. Two of the vetoed bills would have required voters to produce photo identification for absentee voting and to confirm their citizenship before voting and a third would have required voter registration groups to undergo training. In May a coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging Pennsylvania's new voter ID law. In February the Virginia Senate approved a voter ID law [JURIST report]. Also in February South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson filed suit against the US Department of Justice 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. Last year Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed [JURIST report] a law requiring persons to present photo ID at voting booth.

The requested injunction would protect the individual Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiff organizations from irreparable harm, including the harms of unlawful detention and arrest ... and the stigma imposed by the racial and national origin discrimination underlying § 2(B). These harms to individuals and organizations were not before the Supreme Court in Arizona. The public interest will likewise be served by the suspension of provisions that threaten fundamental constitutional rights, disrupt the nation’s ability to speak with one voice on immigration matters, and embody racial and national origin animus. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the preliminary injunction they seek.

Following the Supreme Court ruling last month, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [official website] said that she was pleased with the decision and that she was confident future enforcement would not violate the Constitution [JURIST report]. Several other states have enacted immigration legislation modeled after Arizona's law. Last week a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Carolina [official website] declined to lift an injunction [JURIST report] against South Carolina's controversial immigration law [SB 20 materials], despite the recent Supreme Court ruling. The lawsuit against the South Carolina immigration law was put on hold [JURIST report] in January pending the outcome of Arizona v. United States. Earlier this month Georgia argued to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] that its immigration law is constitutional [JURIST report] under the Arizona ruling, stating that the provision of its law being challenged is most comparable to the provision of the Arizona law that was upheld by the Supreme Court. Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed a revised immigration bill in May following his pledge to refine the immigration law after it was blocked last year [JURIST reports] by the Eleventh Circuit. Last May the ACLU and the NILC filed a class action lawsuit challenging Utah's immigration law, the same month that the ACLU filed a class action [JURIST reports] in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana [official website] challenging that state's immigration law.

Several Kuwaiti prisoners have been transferred to their home country from the Guantanamo detention facility. In December 2009 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced that detainee Fouad al Rabiah had been transferred to the Kuwaiti government [JURIST report]. Al Rabiah, a Kuwaiti national, had been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly eight years under suspicion of aiding al Qaeda and the Taliban. Two months earlier the DOJ announced that detainee Khaled Al-Mutairi had been transferred after his almost eight years of detention [JURIST report]. Al-Mutairi, who had been accused of fighting against American troops in Afghanistan, was transferred after the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ordered his release [JURIST report] in July 2009.

The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia [opinion] that the execution of mentally retarded individuals is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment [text]. However, in 29 states, including Texas, Tennessee and New Jersey [JURIST reports], the defendant still carries the burden of proving mental retardation in death-penalty [JURIST news archive] cases to receive a lesser sentence. Guest columnist Olga Vlasova argues [JURIST op-ed] that the Supreme Court should prohibit the death penalty for severely mentally ill offenders. Internationally, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] has called on all member states to abolish capital punishment entirely [JURIST report].

The API claims the process by which the EPA adopted the new NAAQS was flawed and the standard must therefore be vacated. More specifically, it faults the EPA for (1) relying upon an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed meta-analysis of clinical studies, (2) discounting a published meta-analysis that called into question the EPA's conclusions, (3) treating the same epidemiological study differently in reviews of the NAAQS for NO₂ and for ozone, and (4) projecting the benefits to air quality from the new NAAQS based upon faulty assumptions.

The EPA is vested with the authority [JURIST report] under the CAA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, by automobiles. In Massachusetts v. EPA [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], 12 states and several environmental groups sued the EPA arguing that the agency had "abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The court held that greenhouse gas was within the CAA's definition of "air pollutant" and thus, the EPA had statutory authority to take control the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.

In summary, although the Rule that lies at the heart of the plaintiffs' complaint establishes a definitive, final definition of "religious employer," the ACA's contraceptive coverage requirements are not being enforced against non-exempted religious organizations, and the Rule is currently undergoing a process of amendment to accommodate these organizations. The plaintiffs face no direct and immediate harm, and one can only speculate whether the plaintiffs will ever feel any effects from the Rule when the temporary enforcement safe harbor terminates. This case clearly involves "contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all," ... and therefore it is not ripe for review.

None of the plaintiffs have established that they have standing to challenge the Rule, and even if I were to assume that they did have standing, their claims are not ripe.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 [opinion, PDF] that ACA does not violate the constitution. The case centered on the "individual mandate" provision [text] of the act, which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a fee equal to either a percent of that individual's income or flat rate of $695. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that individual mandate is not a requirement that Americans buy insurance, since individuals who choose to pay the flat-rate fee are in full compliance with the law. The court's decision resolved four consolidated cases accepted by the court [JURIST report] in November 2011. Following the court's decision in the case, reactions from lawmakers and parties of interest inundated press coverage [JURIST report]. US President Barack Obama, who has made the ACA a cornerstone of his administration, held a press conference praising the decision. Several of the losing parties, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [advocacy website], expressed their unhappiness with the decision. NFIB suggested [press release] that "Americans have lost the right to be left alone" and that they will continue to back the law's potential repeal in Congress. Indeed, several lawmakers vowed to repeal PPACA, including Speaker of the House John Boehner [press release].

Kent's announcement in December came just one day after the conclusion of the Durban UN Climate Change Conference [official website] in South Africa. Delegates from 194 countries agreed to negotiate global initiatives [JURIST report] that would eventually force countries to take legally-binding action in order to slow the pace of climate change. After two weeks of debate, the delegates agreed on four major proposals. First, the countries decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase of emissions cuts runs from 2008 to the end of 2012. The second commitment to Kyoto will extend from the beginning of 2012 until the end of 2017. Second, in light of a failure to create a new, internationally-binding treaty at a climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the delegates agreed to form a process known as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action [proposal text, PDF] which entails negotiations to form a legally-binding climate change agreement by 2015 to be enacted by 2020. Third, although poor nations have consistently needed help to finance the adaptations to climate change, the debt crisis has forced developed nations to also limit their contributions to the initiative. The delegates broke ground in agreeing to design a Green Climate Fund [proposal text, PDF] to pool up to $100 billion a year by 2020 for poor countries, but they did not establish how they would reach this number, nor who would contribute to it. Finally, the delegates agreed that implementing a new internationally-binding instrument would raise ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As such, they decided to launch a work plan to close the "ambition gap" between countries' current emissions reduction pledges for 2020 and the goal of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius. Other proposals that were raised but not agreed upon include mechanisms for national adaptation plans [proposal text] and an extension of emissions cut pledges made in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun in 2010.

A human rights activist and critic of the Kremlin, Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in an elevator of her apartment building in Moscow as she was returning home. Politkovskaya investigated human rights abuses in Chechnya and high-level corruption across Russia, and her death raised concerns about the safety of journalists and other critics of the government. Because she was a critic of Russian governmental policies, it was widely speculated at the time of her murder that the Russian government was involved. At the time she was working for the low-circulation independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta [official website, in Russian] where she was writing reports on Chechnya. Her death was widely believed to be a contract killing. Russia's Federal Security Service charged Rustam Makhmudov for the murder [JURIST report] in June 2011. Two of Makhmudov's brothers and a former police officer are currently awaiting trial for the murder in Moscow. A district court acquitted those three men in February 2009 due to a lack of prosecutorial evidence, but the Russian Supreme Court vacated the acquittal and ordered a reinvestigation of the case [JURIST reports].

Last week the Constitutional Court of Romania [official website, in Romanian] stated that at least 50 percent [JURIST report] of the electorate must turn out for the July 29 national referendum to decide whether Traian Basescu should be ousted from the presidency. The Romanian Parliament [official website] voted to impeach [JURIST report] Basescu earlier this month. Also earlier this month the Constitutional Court also accused Ponta of overstepping his authority [JURIST report] by attempting to seize control over the judiciary system. Ponta also ignored a decision by the court finding Basescu should be the representative of the country at the European Council meeting in Brussels. In 2009 the Constitutional Court declared incumbent President Basescu winner of the country's disputed presidential election [JURIST report]. Basescu, who has been president of Romania since 2004, has survived impeachment once before. In 2007 Basescu was reinstated after the high court certified the results of a referendum in which 74 percent of voters rejected Basescu's impeachment [JURIST report].

Syria has faced continuous violence over the past year and a half, and human rights groups have blamed both the government and anti-government groups for the resulting deaths. Last week, UN observers confirmed [JURIST report] a recent attack on activists and army defectors in the Syrian village of Tremseh. During the same week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said [JURIST report] that soviet-produced unexploded submunitions and a bomb canister were discovered in Jabel Shahshabu, a mountainous area near Hama in Syria and posted to YouTube [media website]. A day earlier, Women Under Siege [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] a report documenting 81 instances of sexual assault and rape in Syria since anti-government demonstrations began in March 2011. The violence arose despite an agreement [JURIST report] between UN Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan and the country's President Bashar Al-Assad to end the conflict in the country. Al-Assad reaffirmed that the government will implement the six-point peace plan [JURIST report].