This commission is comprised of a representative cross section of national figures in the country. It could make important contributions to restoring peace and harmony in the state, and in creating a conducive environment for a more inclusive way forward to tackle the underlying causes of the violence, including the condition of the Muslim communities in Rakhine. This will be integral to any reconciliation process."

Myanmar has been unsuccessful in resolving the sectarian violence prevalent in the country despite attempts to bring peace to the communities. Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] accused government forces [JURIST report] of human rights violations following the clashes. Last month spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [official website] Melissa Fleming reported that 10 UN staff and aid workers had been arrested [JURIST report] in the northwestern Rakhine state and three of them are facing unknown criminal charges. In June HRW had urged [JURIST report] the Chinese government to provide basic food and shelter needs to refugees from Myanmar after finding refugee abuse. Earlier that month HRW also called on [JURIST report] Bangladesh to open its borders to Myanmar refugees a day after it demanded Myanmar ensure the safety of communities in the Arakan State subject to the violence between Arakan Buddhists and ethnic Rohingya Muslims. In March HRW reported [JURIST report] that violence and rights abuses continue in Myanmar's northern state of Kachin due to the conflict between Myanmar's armed forces and the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) [BBC backgrounder]. During the same month, Tomas Ojea Quintana [official profile], the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar urged [JURIST report] the country to ensure the protection of human rights. In November, Human rights group Partners Relief and Development [advocacy website] issued [JURIST report] a report [text, PDF, graphic content] which alleged that the army may be committing war crimes including torture and forced labor against ethnic communities in Kachin state.

The announcement came as the ICTY is still engaged in the high-profile trial of Ratko Mladic [ICTY backgrounder; JURIST news archive] who is facing several counts of genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive]. Last month the ICTY postponed [JURIST report] the trial due to health problems. The prosecutors and victims have expressed concern that Ratko Mladic could die before facing a sentence, much like former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic [ICTY backgrounder; PDF] who died [JURIST report] in 2006 before the ICTY could issue a sentence against him. Ratko Mladic's first appearance [JURIST report] before the ICTY was in June of last year when he contested charges against him while simultaneously asking for more time to review them. A day after, during his second appearance [JURIST report], he refused to enter a plea without lawyers of his choice representing him and he was removed from the court for disrupting the proceedings.

Earlier in August the DOJ filed a brief with the court asserting that the government should decide [JURIST report] when a Guantanamo prisoner is granted continued regular access to legal counsel absent a detainee's ongoing habeas or other legal challenge. Also in August a military commissions judge at Guantanamo announced that he will hear oral arguments regarding allegations by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] that the government censored discussions about torture [JURIST report] during the trial of the 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder] defendants. In the last month there have been several calls by the UN and foreign governments for some long-held Guantanamo detainees to be returned to their home countries, including Egypt, Canada and Kuwait [JURIST reports].

In dismissing as unripe this pre-enforcement challenge to an anti-abortion statute, brought by abortion providers expressly regulated by the law in question, on behalf of themselves and their patients, the majority does for the first time something neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever done. This result is alarming not only because it constitutes an abdication of the court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction, but also because it disregards harms to the sensitive and constitutionally-protected interests advanced by plaintiffs. Our precedents do not require us to withhold—and thus likely effectively deny—federal court consideration of plaintiffs’ claims.

Louisiana passed new abortion restrictions [JURIST report] in June. The new regulations increase the waiting period between a mandatory ultrasound and the procedure itself from two to 24 hours and require the doctor to describe the visible features on the ultrasound and "make audible" the heartbeat of the fetus when possible. Governor Bobby Jindal also signed a law making it a criminal offense to perform an abortion without a medical license. Reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder] have become increasingly controversial across the US. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] released its annual mid-year report [JURIST report] summarizing some of the trends observed in 2012 on the most significant abortion restrictions passed in 2012, as well as CRR's ongoing legal responses to several measures. The report states that "[I]n at least 17 states, legislation designed to restrict women's access to reproductive health care and impinge on their constitutional rights has already become law. As the year continues, and more restrictive bills are considered, pro-choice advocates and legislators in several states will have the opportunity to prevent these harmful public health choices from being made in their own states."

Upon consideration of the entire record ... we conclude that we cannot, at this time, preclear Florida's early voting changes because the State has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that those changes will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Specifically, the State has not proven that the changes will be nonretrogressive if the covered counties offer only the minimum number of early voting hours that they are required to offer under the new statute, which would constitute only half the hours required under the prior law.

In June Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis School of Law, wrote [JURIST op-ed] that recent statistical findings may contribute to courts declaring Section 5 of the VRA to be unconstitutional, while simultaneously strengthening the provisions of Section 2. Unlike the preclearance rules of Section 5, Section 2 nationally prohibits election laws that "result" in minority voters having "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." In May Elmendorf wrote [JURIST op-ed] that the "purpose" rather than the "effects" prong of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may offer a better basis to challenge recent state regulations of the voting process. The DOJ relied on the "effects" prong of Section 5, which requires that a new law not have a retrogressive effect on racial minorities' political participation, in denying preclearance to Texas in March, and to South Carolina [JURIST report] in December.

Children exposed to hostilities and other extreme situations where they are held to adult standards may experience potentially long-term negative impacts on their health and well-being. Earlier this month Children's Rights Researcher Alice Farmer [profile] at Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] wrote that in many cases of asylum, children are presumed to be adults and are detained as such in countries such as Malta, despite UNICEF endorsements [JURIST comment] of standards stating that migrants who enter age determination proceedings should be presumed children until shown otherwise. In June UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] issued a report detailing the violations committed against children in conflict zones [JURIST report]. The report discussed conflicts in Afghanistan [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], Central African Republic [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], Chad [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], Sudan [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], South Sudan [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], Democratic Republic of Congo [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and Syria [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], and the situation of children in each country.

Earlier this week Ukraine's Supreme Administrative Court declined to overturn a lower court decision prohibiting Lutsenko and Tymoshenko from running in the upcoming parliamentary elections [JURIST report], confirming the August 11 decision of the Kyiv Administrative Appeal Court upholding the Central Electoral Commission's resolution No. 216 of August 8 in which it refused to register Tymoshenko and Lutsenko as parliamentary candidates. Last month a Ukrainian appeals court postponed [JURIST report] the appeal hearing challenging Tymoshenko's corruption conviction and seven-year sentence, marking the third postponement in that case. Her tax evasion trial began [JURIST report] in April but has also been postponed several times. In May the ECHR ended an investigation [JURIST report] into the health care conditions of Tymoshenko, finding that the Ukrainian government provided her with adequate care. She previously alleged that prison guards were beating her and she refused to be treated [JURIST report] by prison doctors for back problems, believing they were under the direction of political rival President Viktor Yanukovych.