Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was seized on the streets of Milan in 2003 by CIA agents with the help of Italian operatives, then allegedly transferred to Egypt and tortured by Egypt's State Security Intelligence before being released [JURIST reports] in February 2007. In September 2009 the US Department of Justice [official website] filed a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit brought by former State Department official Sabrina De Sousa seeking diplomatic immunity against the Italian charges. De Sousa was one of the Americans whose sentence was increased to seven years. The CIA's rendition program has been the source of much controversy and litigation. In 2009 President Barack Obama announced the US would continue its practice [JURIST report] of sending terror detainees to third countries for interrogation with increased oversight by the State Department to prevent torture.

A similar call was made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] last week. She urged [JURIST report] religious and political leaders around the world to encourage an end to violence that followed the release of the film. While Pillay said she "fully understand[s] why people wish to protest strongly against" the film, she "utterly condemn[s]" the violence that has resulted from the protests. Violent protests last week in Benghazi and Egypt led to the death of the US ambassador and three others and more than 200 injuries, while protests on Thursday in Yemen led to the death of one person and injured 15 others.

Karadzic has been accused of participating in the planning of the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], which resulted in the death of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys. Two weeks ago, the ICTY denied Karadzic's request for a new trial after he argued that the prosecution had failed to disclose [JURIST reports] crucial information until after trial. The court reasoned that the delay in disclosing evidence has not infringed on Karadzic's right to a fair trial, although the court noted that "the number of disclosure violations in this case has reflected badly on the Prosecution." In early June the judges from the ICTY went on a five-day visit [JURIST report] to locations relevant to the indictment of Karadzic. They visited Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Srebrenica and surrounding areas. This visit came just months after the ICTY sentenced [JURIST report] former president of the municipality of Sokolac, BiH, Milan Tupajic to two months in prison for refusing to testify against Karadzic. In February former Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army Ratko Mladic [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] accused [JURIST report] the ICTY of being biased.

Brazil's Truth Commission was sworn in [JURIST report] by President Dilma Rousseff [official profile, in Portuguese] in May and will have two years to complete its work. In March prosecutors announced plans to charge a retired colonel [JURIST report] for his actions during the military dictatorship [investigation materials, PDF, in Portuguese] despite an amnesty law which bars prosecution of government officials during the military dictatorship's rule. In 2010 Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged Brazil to repeal its amnesty law [JURIST report] which protected former government officials.

Protests and demonstrations in Bahrain have been ongoing since February 2011 [JURIST report]. Earlier this week seven police officers were charged [JURIST report] with torturing protesters. Earlier this month the government announced that it would pursue legal proceedings [JURIST report] against the al Wefaq [official website, in Arabic] political party, which it labels an opposition group, for engaging in anti-government protests in the face of a ban [JURIST report] of those activities. Also this month, a civilian court in Bahrain upheld lengthy prison sentences [JURIST report] for 20 opposition and human rights activists, including eight life sentences. At the end of August a Bahraini appeals court overturned the conviction [JURIST report] of prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab [JURIST news archive]. In July Amnesty International [advocacy website] urged the government [JURIST report] of Bahrain to release all prisoners of conscience immediately.

I've never claimed that SB 1070 would cure Arizona's problems with illegal immigration; only the federal government has the resources and responsibility necessary to achieve that. What SB 1070 does represent is one more tool that our officers can use in collaborating with federal authorities to reduce the crime and other impacts associated with illegal immigration in our communities.

Immigration law [JURIST backgrounder] has became a hot button issue over the past few years as many states, Arizona being the first, have passed laws giving state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. In August the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Alabama's controversial immigration law [HB 56, PDF], upheld a few sections of the law and rejected part of Georgia's immigration law [HB 87, text]. That same month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] again heard arguments [JURIST report] on two anti-illegal immigrant laws enacted in 2006 by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which deny permits to businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords who extend housing to them. In July 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. Last May the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center 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.

The case for the bill is simple. It is about equality, it is about recognition of relationships-the validation of those relationships-and it is about saying to people who are often excluded, alienated or discriminated against, "You know what? You are okay. What's more, you are better than okay: your relationship is just as valid as mine is in my marriage to my wife."

Same-sex marriage recognition has been a contentious issue both internationally as well as within the US. Thus far in 2012 France, Germany and Scotland [JURIST reports] have all seen new efforts to get same-sex marriages recognized. Earlier this month the US Department of Justice asked the US Supreme Court to consider two more challenges [JURIST report] to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text], which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In July a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] in a DOMA challenge that seeks to achieve for gay and lesbian couples the same federal immigration rights afforded to heterosexual couples [JURIST report].

Ukraine has also sparked other concerns leading up to their elections. Last week, Europe's human rights overseer urged [JURIST report] open and honest elections in Ukraine. In the same statement, he condemned the ongoing imprisonment of former prime minister and opposition party leader Yulia Tymoshenko [personal website; JURIST news archive] whose final appeal was denied [JURIST report] by Ukraine's highest court last month. During the appeal the government denied allegations that the criminal proceedings against Tymoshenko were a measure initiated by President Viktor Yanukovych to prevent her from participating in the October elections.

The Budget Repair Bill has been the subject of copious legal and political controversy since its passage in March 2011. In July the Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] refused to reopen a case challenging the Budget Repair Bill because of a justice's refusal to recuse himself [JURIST report]. The Supreme Court's upholding of the Budget Repair Bill overruled a Dane County Circuit Court's decision [JURIST report] last year that struck down the law for violations of the open meetings rule. The law had previously been temporarily blocked [JURIST report] from publication and implementation by the same judge. The bill, which limits collective bargaining rights of state employees and requires them to contribute a percentage of their salaries to their health care and pensions, was signed into law [JURIST report] in March of last year.

Upon review, we find that the disconnect between what the Law prescribes and how it is being implemented has created a number of conceptual difficulties in addressing the legal issues raised. Initially, the focus on short-term implementation, which has become necessary given that critical terms of the statute have themselves become irrelevant, is in tension with the framing of Appellants' challenge to the Law as a facial one (or one contesting the Law's application across the widest range of circumstances). In this regard, however, we agree with Appellants' essential position that if a statute violates constitutional norms in the short term, a facial challenge may be sustainable even though the statute might validly be enforced at some time in the future. Indeed, the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate.

There are now 32 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, but the issue remains controversial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on the law late last week. The case reached Pennsylvania's high court after an appeal [Bloomberg report] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] from the lower court's ruling allowing the voter ID law to stand. The ACLU along with 10 citizen plaintiffs brought this case against Governor Tom Corbett who signed the voter ID bill into law [JURIST report] in March. JURIST Guest Columnist Lawrence Frolik [official profile] of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law analyzed [JURIST op-ed] the law and declared that it will not stop voter fraud but will cause disenfranchisement.

In a similar vein, combating violence against women and girls in the indigenous context must be achieved holistically; it cannot be addressed in isolation from the range of rights recognized for indigenous peoples in general. In this regard, violence against indigenous women and girls, which is distressingly all too common across the globe, cannot be seen as separate from the history of discrimination and marginalization that has been suffered invariably by indigenous peoples. This history manifests itself in continued troubling structural factors, such as conditions of poverty, lack of access to land and resources or other means of subsistence, or poor access to education and health services, which are all factors that bear on indigenous peoples with particular consequences for indigenous women. The history of discrimination against indigenous peoples has also resulted in the deterioration of indigenous social structures and cultural traditions, and in the undermining or breakdown of indigenous governance and judicial systems, impairing in many cases the ability of indigenous peoples to respond effectively to problems of violence against women and girls within their communities.

Last month, Anaya called on the US to consult with indigenous tribes [JURIST report] about the scheduled sale of land in the Black Hills region of the state. Anaya announced that he would visit the US in April to launch the UN's first ever investigation into the rights situation of Native Americans [JURIST report]. Anaya's goal was to look into the rights of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, and determine how the US's endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has affected the rights of these groups of people.