Lubanga was sentenced to 14 years in prison last month after he was convicted [JURIST reports] of the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo [ICC information sheet] is a landmark case for the ICC because Lubanga was the first prisoner taken into custody [JURIST report] and delivered to the international criminal tribunal in The Hague. The prosecution concluded its case [JURIST report] in July 2009 after presenting 22 weeks of testimony. Lubanga's trial began in January 2009 after being delayed for evidentiary reasons and was then halted soon afterward when one of the child witnesses recanted his testimony [JURIST reports] that Lubanga had recruited him for the militia. He was charged with recruiting child soldiers [JURIST report] in 2006. Lubanga become the first DRC war crimes defendant to appear before the ICC after he was taken into ICC custody [JURIST report] in March 2006.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond [official website] had previously proposed [JURIST report] a draft independence referendum bill that would allow the country more autonomy. He unveiled a proposal [consultation paper, PDF; press release] in 2010 that, if passed, would allow Scottish voters to choose whether the country should gain more independence or not. The draft included several areas in which Scotland would cut ties with the UK such as foreign affairs, defense, monetary policy and currency. It also asked further of whether Scotland should become an independent state with the possibility of membership in the European Union, while retaining the queen as the head of state.

The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed a ruling [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] holding that the Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit overturned a lower court decision which awarded the family [JURIST report] almost $11 million in damages. At oral arguments counsel for the petitioner argued [JURIST report] that the court should place an emphasis on the context of the speech in light of the fact that the protests took place at a military funeral. Counsel for the church argued that, because Snyder had turned his son's funeral into a public event, the church's actions were protected because they were speaking on a matter of public concern.

West Bank settlements [JURIST news archive] have caused tension between Israel and Palestinian authorities, as well as criticism by international groups despite the Israeli parliament's vote [JURIST report] against legalizing an unauthorized settlement in early June. In July the Supreme Court of Israel [official website, in Hebrew] granted [JURIST report] a government request to delay the removal of the Migron outpost [Peace Now backgrounder] in the West Bank. The court had initially ordered that Migron be dismantled by August 1 but decided to postpone the order after the government asked [JURIST reports] for a delay, arguing that the temporary housing site for the Migron settlers would not be ready by the ordered date. In June the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Richard Falk demanded [JURIST report] that Israel cease its demolition [press release] of Palestinian buildings in the West Bank settlements after finding that such demolition of Palestinian structures like houses, animal shelters, water cisterns and roads have risen by 87 percent from last year. Israel responded to international investigations into these settlements by announcing [JURIST report] in March that it will sever ties to the UN Human Rights Council. 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.

Since 2001, anti-terrorism laws and military detentions in the US have been the subject of much controversy and litigation. In May federal prosecutors asked Forrest to lift the injunction [JURIST report] she placed earlier that month. Forrest disagreed with the government that the law was merely an affirmation of the President's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), finding that the law violates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and Fifth Amendment [text] due process rights. President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011. Upon signing, he noted [statement], "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December.

Political unrest has plagued Madagascar for the last 3 years [Reuters timeline] after Ravalomanana stepped down as president. Last month the trial of a former judge charged with plotting a coup [JURIST report] began. In November 2010 there was an attempted coup during a constitutional referendum [JURIST reports]. Despite holding power since 2009 [JURIST report], much of the international community has refused to recognize Rajoelina's regime.

Saudi Arabia was criticized not only for its unfair trials against opposition leaders and human rights activists but also for its harsh treatment of detainees. In January the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] reported on the increased use of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia [JURIST report], including increased use of torture to obtain confessions. Additionally it was revealed that the number of capital punishment cases in the country has nearly tripled since 2010. In June of last year AI demanded [JURIST report] that Saudi Arabia immediately cease its executions because there is often a lack of basic procedural due process. AI argued that most of the execution were mainly based on confessions obtained under duress.

The trial of the three activists has created controversy and has been criticized as politically motivated move by Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website; JURIST news archive] to discredit his opposition. This week lawyers for the women requested that the judge recuse herself [JURIST report] because her decisions were politically motivated. Judge Marina Syrova declined to hear the defense motion for her recusal and moved forward with the trial. The defense had also moved for the judge's recusal [RAPSI report] last week but that motion was also denied. The trial began last week [JURIST report].

Allegations related to the secret prisons [JURIST news archive] operated by the CIA have been made in the past. In December the Associated Press (AP) [media website] alleged [JURIST report] that the CIA operated a secret prison outside of Bucharest. In a joint investigation, the AP and the German public television company, ARD Panorama [media website, in German], have uncovered the site revealing that it was one of the CIA's secret prison network operated by the CIA overseas to house and interrogate terrorists. Romania is not the only country accused of harboring a CIA secret prison. In 2009 the Lithuanian Parliament [official website, in Lithuanian] National Security Committee reported [JURIST report] that the CIA had established two secret prisons for al Qaeda suspects in the country. Two years earlier the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) [official website] found [JURIST report] that the CIA established and operated secret prisons in Romania and Poland between 2002 and 2005.

A similar ruling took place in 2011 when the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a City of Redondo Beach anti-day laborer ordinance [3-7.1601 text] as an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The ordinance prohibited individuals from standing on a street or highway to solicit "employment, business, or contributions" from passing motorists. The court held that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored required under Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association [Oyez summary] thereby restricting more speech than necessary.