Technological advancements allowing the tracking and storage of mass amounts of information have sparked legal controversy in recent years. The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in January that the government's attachment of a global positioning system (GPS) device to a vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment [text]. Last August the ACLU announced that their affiliates were sending approximately 375 requests for information in 31 states to reveal how law enforcement uses location data tracking on cell phones [JURIST report]. Smartphones now come with built-in global positioning systems (GPS), allowing users' movements to be tracked by law enforcement agencies, sometimes prior to having the phone in custody. In January 2011 the Supreme Court of California ruled that law enforcement officers can legally search text messages [JURIST report] on a suspect's cell phone without a warrant incident to a lawful custodial arrest. The California decision represents a split from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2010 ruling and a 2009 decision [JURST reports] by the Ohio Supreme Court holding that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored on a cell phone.

Last week Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] reported that Bangladesh's personal laws governing marriage, separation and divorce overtly discriminate against women [JURIST report]. In August the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice [official website] called on the government of Tunisia to ensure that women's rights are protected [JURIST report] in line with the nation's international human rights obligations. The call came amid the country's new constitution which presented a setback for women's rights by making them "complementary" to men's rights. In July Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] submitted a briefing to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women [official website] detailing the failure of the Mexican government [JURIST report] to protect women from torture, killings, sexual violence and other ill-treatment. During the same month, Women Under Siege [advocacy website] found 81 instances [JURIST report] of sexual assault and rape by military forces in Syria since anti-government demonstrations began in March 2011.

Lawsuits challenging voting rules have been filed in various states in the run up to the November presidential election. Earlier this month Ohio officials asked [JURIST report] a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling requiring Ohio's three-day early voting to be available to military and civilians alike. The appeal came after the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio [official website] declared [JURIST report] the Ohio Revised Code section 3509.03 unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection Clause [LII Backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In August the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] unanimously rejected [JURIST report] a Texas law requiring voters to present photo identification to election officials before casting their ballots.

Total oil has faced a series of high-profile legal challenges. In April 2010 a French judge charged [JURIST report] Total with bribery and complicity in connection with a scandal involving the UN's Iraq Oil-for-Food program [official website; JURIST news archive]. The company denied the allegations, stating that the it had followed UN policy and acted lawfully [text, PDF]. In July 2010 a UK crown court ordered [JURIST report] five companies to pay £9.5 million in damages relating to the 2005 Buncefield oil storage depot explosion [investigation website; case materials], which has been described as the most costly industrial accident in the UK. Total UK, a subsidiary of French oil company Total, was ordered to pay £3.6 million, the second largest fine ever to be levied in the UK for safety offenses.

In June the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) sentenced [JURIST report] the former captain at the Butare military academy, Ecole des Sous-Officiers, to life imprisonment for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for violence perpetrated in Butare prefecture. In May the ICTR sentenced [JURIST report] former Rwandan Minister of Youth and Sports Callixte Nzabonimana to life in prison after finding him guilty of charges related to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Earlier in May, the Referral Chamber of the ICTR transferred [JURIST report] the case of Ladislas Ntaganzwa to the Rwandan national court system, making his the fourth Rwandan genocide case to be transferred to a national court. In April the court confirmed and proceeded with the transfer [JURIST report] of former Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi.

International humanitarian and human rights law prohibits any mistreatment of people in custody, including executions, torture, and pillage. The use of child soldiers and the deliberate destruction of religious and cultural property are also prohibited. Leaders of the rebel groups may be liable under international law for abuses committed by forces under their command.

Last week UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned [JURIST report] human rights violations in Mali and called for international action to address the problems. Pillay stated that two militant Islamic groups, MUJAO and Ansar Dine, are recruiting child soldiers, committing cruel punishments such as amputations and stoning an unmarried couple to death, violating basic human rights, committing sexual violence against women, and executing individuals. In August officials from the International Criminal Court (ICC) were in Mali investigating [JURIST report] whether two Islamic groups, the MUJAO and Ansar Dine, had committed war crimes in Mali. According to Malian officials the Islamic groups had been committing human rights violations, including executing Malian soldiers, committing rapes, massacring civilians and recruiting child soldiers.

NEPA's procedural mandates require agencies to inform their discretion in decisionmaking. An agency that complies with NEPA gives outside influences (the public, lawmakers, other agencies) more information with which to put pressure on that agency, but the original agency retains substantive decisionmaking power regardless. At most, the Corps has abused its discretion—an abuse explicitly immunized by the DFE.

Monday's ruling overturns a March decision by the same Fifth Circuit panel, which held that the USACE was liable for the damages [JURIST report]. The appeal followed a 2009 decision [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] which held that the USACE made "negligent decisions" that "rested on applications of objective scientific principles and were not susceptible to policy consideration," and awarded plaintiffs approximately $720,000. Also in 2009 the Fifth Circuit ruled that several contractors responsible for dredging the Mississippi River, which some claim exacerbated damage from Hurricane Katrina, cannot be held liable [JURIST report] since the contractors were acting under Congress' express authorization.

Last month leaders of a political opposition in Kuwait criticized [JURIST report] the government's efforts to change the country's election law through the Constitutional Court, saying the government is attempting to seize power through the court in violation of the constitution. The government announced in August that they had asked the national Constitutional Court to review the legality of the country's election law. In June the Constitutional Court ruled that this year's election for the new parliament was unconstitutional [JURIST report] and the previous parliament of 2009 should be reinstated, thereby removing the opposition-controlled parliament, and restoring a more government-friendly body. Earlier that month Kuwait's ruler Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] suspended [NYT report] the parliament for a month in response to escalating tensions between the more liberal, western-backed lawmakers and the Islamist-led lawmakers. The tension grew when two cabinet ministers resigned under the pressure of the Islamist-led lawmakers who tried to gain more seats.

We recognize the role of the International Criminal Court in a multilateral system that aims to end impunity and establish the rule of law, and in this respect, we welcome the States that have been parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and call upon all States that are not yet parties to the Statute to consider ratifying or acceding to it, and emphasize the importance of Cooperation with the Court;

In July Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] advocated for governments to support the ICC more fully [JURIST report]. The statement, which marked the tenth anniversary of the ICC coming into effect, called on nations to demonstrate their support for the court by "publicly committing to backing up the court politically and financially." According to Marek Marczynski who manages AI's International Justice Research, Policy and Campaign office, the ICC should be supported as it gives "hope for justice to victims of heinous crimes around the world that justice will be done." In January Mali became the first African country [JURIST report] to agree to enforce the ICC's sentences of imprisonment. Mali joins Finland, Belgium, Denmark, the UK and Austria as countries which have agreed to detain individuals convicted by the ICC. Finland, Belgium and Denmark were the most recent countries to agree to take convicts [JURIST report].

The ECHR's decision in April marked a change in position for the court from its position two years ago, when it stayed the extradition [JURIST report] of four of the terrorism suspects to the US, holding that potential punishment could violate European Convention on Human Rights provisions on the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. The UK High Court approved the extradition [JURIST report] of Aswat and Ahmad to the US in 2006. Aswat is wanted in the US on suspicion of setting up a terrorist training camp and Ahmad is wanted for conspiring to kill Americans and running a website used to fund terrorists and recruit al Qaeda members. The extraditions were approved only after the US offered assurances that it would not seek the death penalty, try the suspects before military tribunals or declare them enemy combatants. A British court approved the extradition [JURIST report] of Hamza in 2007. Hamza, who is currently serving a seven-year sentence in the UK [JURIST report] for urging his followers to kill Jews and other non-Muslims, faces US charges of attempting to establish terrorist training camps in Oregon, conspiring to take hostages in Yemen, and helping terror training in Afghanistan.