Public referendums on tax laws can be popular with politicians who may benefit by passing the issue to their constituents, but may make governing difficult because citizens are not usually apt to decide to tax themselves. Earlier this month the Supreme Court of Missouri [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that revision to Missouri tax law [text] does not violate the Missouri Constitution [text]. The law was approved by Missouri voters through referendum in 2010 and requires the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City to regularly seek voter approval of municipal earnings taxes through elections. Last month the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that an Indianapolis tax amnesty program did not violate the equal protection rights of those citizens who had already paid the taxes in full. The case involved an Indianapolis tax scheme that was changed mid-project such that several residents were forgiven the remainder of their balances on that tax.

The Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] into Prince William Sound and contaminated about 1,300 miles of coastline. In March 2011 the US District Court for the District of Alaska [official website] refused to order Exxon Mobil [corporate website] to pay an additional $92 million [JURIST report] in damages from the oil spill. In 2009 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled that Exxon Mobil owes interest [JURIST report] on the more than $500 million in punitive damages awarded against it following the spill. The US Supreme Court [official website] declined to rule [JURIST report] on the issue the previous year, thus remanding it to the Ninth Circuit. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 to reduce a punitive damages award [JURIST report] to be paid by Exxon from $2.5 billion to $500 million, but did not rule on the issue of interest. In December 2006, the Ninth Circuit reduced [JURIST report] Exxon's original $5 billion punitive damage award by more than $2 billion, ruling that the award was excessive in light of a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that punitive damages must be reasonable and proportionate to the harm incurred, and also considering Exxon's cleanup and compensation efforts.

Saudi Arabia has previously been criticized for ties to al Qaeda. In March Judge George Daniels for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website] dismissed a motion to reinstate Saudi Arabia as a defendant in the civil compensation lawsuit by victims and commercial insurers against the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks [JURIST backgrounder] finding no sufficient basis to grant the plaintiffs' motion. He noted that such a motion was already presented to SDNY and rejected in 2005 by Judge Richard Conway Casey, who dismissed Saudi Arabia as a defendant [JURIST report] at that time. The claim against Saudi Arabia was dismissed [JURIST report] in 2008 by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because there was insufficient evidence that the Kingdom's princes had actual knowledge that their money was going to be used in the 9/11 attacks. Even after 10 years, cases brought by victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack against other governmental entities did not come to an end.

Qatada was granted political asylum by the UK in 1994. When later he was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act police seized a sizable sum of money in various currencies, for which no explanation was given. In 2001 he went into hiding to avoid being arrested and detained under the then-proposed Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. He was arrested again in 2002 and held until March 2005 when he was released pursuant to a House of Lords judgment declaring his detention without trial to be unlawful. In February 2009 the ECHR ordered the UK to pay £2,500 in damages [JURIST report] to Qatada after determining that his imprisonment violated the European Convention on Human Rights [materials]. Despite his previous grant of asylum and fears of torture and persecution, UK Law Lords in February 2009 ruled that Qatada could be returned [JURIST report] to Jordan to face terrorism charges. The February decision overruled an April 2008 Court of Appeal decision blocking his deportation [JURIST report].

Mexico has faced criticism recently for human rights violations. Earlier this month, Amnesty International submitted a briefing [JURIST report] to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women detailing the failure of the Mexican government to protect women from torture, killings, sexual violence and other ill-treatment. In May the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) urged [JURIST report] Mexican authorities to do everything in their power to solve the murders of three Mexican journalists found in Veracruz. In March the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances expressed concern [JURIST report] over the state of enforced disappearances in Mexico. The Working Group, a panel of five independent human rights experts, found a "chronic pattern of impunity demonstrated by the absence of effective investigations in cases of enforced disappearances" in Mexico.

International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said earlier this month that her office is opening a preliminary examination [JURIST report] of the recent violence in Mali, after the ICC received a letter from Malian government officials requesting an ICC investigation. Malian Justice Minister Malick Coulibaly said earlier this month that he would ask the ICC to open an investigation [JURIST report]. In May AI reported that Mali is facing its worst human rights crisis [JURIST report] since it gained independence in 1960. HRW released a similar report in April claiming that all sides to the conflict are committing war crimes [JURIST report]. Earlier in April the ICC said they would monitor the situation [JURIST report] in Mali for potential crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction. All of this has come after Malian soldiers took control of the government [JURIST report] and suspended the constitution in March. Many in the international community have expressed concern over the situation, including the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees [JURIST reports]. The turmoil began when Taureg rebels attacked Malian soldiers [Al Jazeera report].

HRW's criticism of India's violence against activists was not the first time India has been under international attention for its human rights practices. In April UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns called on [JURIST report] the Indian government to cease its practice of extrajudicial and arbitrary executions. A month earlier Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the Indian government to stop capital punishment. AI claimed that India would move away from the international trend of abolishing capital punishment if it continues with such practice. In January HRW called on India to prosecute soldiers for torture and extrajudicial executions on its Bangladesh border.

Visa is not the only financial institution that faces sanctions and other litigation. Last week, JPMorgan Chase [corporate website; JURIST news archive] agreed [JURIST report] to a $100 million settlement in a case accusing that the company increased monthly minimum payments for credit card holders from two percent to five percent in 2008 and 2009 to profit from higher fees. The settlement which was filed with the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] has still be approved by a judge. Bank of America (BOA) also agreed to pay $375 million in a settlement with bond insurer Syncora Guarantee [corporate websites] that accused the bank of misleading it into insuring toxic mortgage-backed securities of BOA-owned Countrywide Financial Corporation [NYT backgrounder]. In China, a Hong Kong judge ruled against Deutsche Bank AG [corporate website] on a motion to dismiss developer Tin Lik's rental fraud lawsuit. Lik claimed that during his sale of the Gateway Plaza in Beijing to Deutsche Bank's RREEF China Commercial Trust in 2007, he was forced to pay a shortfall of HK $279 million (US $36 million) in rental fraud.

People can believe that they and only those like them possess the one and only truth. That's their right. Though they do not have the right to harm those they think harbor incorrect views. But their societies pay a cost when they choose to look at others with hate or disgust. Human rights become real not only in interactions between citizens and their governments, but also in those millions of ordinary moments among neighbors and classmates, coworkers, even strangers on the street. Every time people choose tolerance and respect over fear and animosity, they strengthen human rights for themselves as well as everyone else, because they affirm their shared humanity.

Governments continue to balance religious freedom with other national concerns. Last month, a German court ruled [JURIST report] that circumcising young boys based on religious traditions is prohibited even if the parents consent to the procedure. In March, a UN expert urged states to refrain from using official state religions [JURIST report] as a means to enhance their national identity politics, "as this may have detrimental effects for the situation of individuals from minority communities." Last August Hungarian churches challenged a law [JURIST report] that officially recognized only 14 of the 358 religious groups in the country.

In January, the UN refused to replace [JURIST report] German judge Siefried Blunk after Cambodia attempted to block the Swiss reserve judge Laurent Kasper-Ansermet from investigating the same politically-sensitive cases. Specifically, the Cambodian government contended that Kasper-Ansermet was unsuitable [Reuters report] to continue the investigation because he used his Twitter account to comment on the cases. Blunk, citing government interference in his investigations, resigned [JURIST report] in October, but was consistently criticized for allegedly failing to conduct impartial investigations. Meanwhile, Cambodia has argued that the trial of former Khmer Rougue leaders is a Cambodian rather than an international issue.

Putin's approval of the adoption agreement comes not long after the Russian Duma [official website, in Russian] ratified the agreement [JURIST report] earlier this month. In February Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that it would ask the government to suspend adoptions by US citizens [USA Today report] after discovering that at least 17 children had died due to violence by their American families. In 2011 a Pennsylvania couple was sentenced [NYT report] to four years in prison after a jury found them negligent and responsible for the death of their adopted seven-year-old Russian son, though the Russian government criticized the ruling as too lenient. Also in 2011 an Alaskan woman was convicted [Huffington Post report] of child abuse after she poured hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son.

Apple has been involved in patent litigation around the globe against rivals Samsung Electronics, HTC and Motorola [corporate websites]. Last week the Federal Court of Australia [official website] began hearing [JURIST report] two patent infringement cases brought by Apple and Samsung Electronics. Apple has sued Samsung for infringing numerous patents by producing smartphones and tablets similar in design to the iPhone and iPad. In response, Samsung brought a counterclaim alleging that Apple unlawfully used its 3G technology that allows users to take calls while uploading photos and other documents. On the same day the US International Trade Commission (USITC) [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a decision by an administrative law judge that Apple legitimately used digital image preview technology patented by Eastman Kodak [corporate website]. Earlier this month, a UK court ruled [JURIST report] in favor of Samsung in a design infringement case brought by Apple alleging that three of Samsung's tablets infringed upon Apple's registered design patents while Samsung denied infringement. The court held that the designs of Samsung's Tablets 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 did not infringe upon the Community Registered Design No. 000181607-0001 which belongs to Apple. On the other hand, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] issued an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung to stop the sale of its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US.