Adultery laws have usually been drafted and almost always implemented in a manner prejudicial to women. Provisions in penal codes often do not treat women and men equally and establish harsher sanctions for women, and in some countries, rules of evidence value women’s testimony as half that of a man's

Discrimination and violence against women is a global issue. In June Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on the Sudanese government [JURIST report] to reform its discriminatory laws and abolish both the death penalty and all corporal punishment after a young Sudanese woman was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. In March HRW urged the Afghan government [JURIST report] to release about 400 women and girls who were imprisoned for "moral crimes," including flight from unlawful forced marriage or domestic violence in addition to "zina," which is a sexual relationship outside of marriage due to rape or forced prostitution. In July 2011 UN Women [official website] released a report examining the persistent discrimination against women [JURIST report] around the world and concluded that the rule of law does not provide adequate protection for women in practice. A month earlier a UN Special Rapporteur stated that even the US is facing continued violence against women [JURIST report], especially poor, minority and immigrant women. In May 2011 the Council of Europe (COE) [official website] introduced [JURIST report] the first international convention to combat violence against women [text]. In the same month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] urged Tunisia and Egypt [JURIST report] to ensure that women's rights receive constitutional protection.

I urge the Security Council to speak with one voice. That is essential in order to send a strong message. The longer this vicious conflict continues, the more lethal it becomes not just for Syria's own long-term future, but also for the entire region. Already, the spill-over into Turkey is threatening regional peace and security. I fear for Syia's children, many of whom will be scarred for life by the dreadful and prolonged traumatic experience they are suffering. ... By remaining divided, the international community is enabling the continuation of the suffering and helping create the circumstances for a wider regional conflict.

Since 2011, Syria has been engaged in an ongoing internal conflict between the Syrian army and the Free Syrian Army [official website]. Pillay's statement comes at a time of civil uprising and increased concern over the conflict in Syria. Last week a human rights watchdog uncovered evidence of the Syrian military using banned cluster bombs [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, the investigative commission on Syria testified before the UN Human Rights Council that human rights violations in Syria were committed by both sides and increasing in severity and number [JURIST report]. Pillay has previously addressed the rights violations [JURIST report] faced by Syrian citizens. In July Amnesty International accused government forces and rebels in Syria of summarily capturing and killing [JURIST report] opposition forces in violation of international humanitarian law.

A number of countries around the world have been making attempts to solve the problem of maritime piracy. In May a United Arab Emirates court sentenced 10 Somali pirates [JURIST report] to 25 years in prison. Also that month six accused Somali pirates went on trial [JURIST report] in a Paris court for taking 30 crew members hostage in 2008 on the ship Le Ponant in the Gulf of Aden. The US government in March handed over [JURIST report] 15 suspected Somali pirates it captured in January to the Republic of Seychelles for prosecution. Italy ordered its first international piracy trial in February against nine Somali pirates, while France began its first international piracy trial [JURIST reports] in November. Last October the UN Security Council adopted a resolution encouraging states to criminalize and punish piracy after maritime piracy reached an all-time high [JURIST reports] in 2010. The UN also donated $9.3 million [JURIST report] in 2010 to fund piracy courts in Seychelles and Kenya, the only two countries that have created such courts.

Homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and the class remains a politically weakened minority. ... DOMA's classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violated equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

The decision by the Second Circuit the most recent development in the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder]. Last week a court in Alabama held [JURIST report] that a state statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman bars a woman from adopting her female partner's child. Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] petitioned [JURIST report] the US Supreme Court to hear Windsor's case and another challenge to DOMA, arguing that the law unconstitutionally interferes with the right of the states to define marriage. Last year, the Obama administration instructed [press release] the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court, prompting BLAG to take up the mantle of defending the law [JURIST report]. House Speaker John Boehner [official website] convened a meeting of BLAG and issued a statement [press release] that the constitutionality of the law should be "determined by the courts, not by the president unilaterally."

Al-Senussi was extradited to Libya [JURIST report] from Mauritania in September on charges of murder and persecution for planning attacks on civilians during the Libya conflict as well as organizing mass rapes [JURIST report]. The extradition to Libya happened despite a June 2011 ICC arrest warrant [JURIST report] for al-Senussi, Gaddafi and Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi [JURIST news archive]. Earlier this month the Libyan government requested that the ICC allow Saif al-Islam to stand trial in Libya [JURIST report] rather than the ICC, promising a fair trial could be held internally. Libyan prosecutors in August announced [Al Jazeera report] that the prosecutors had completed their investigation of Saif al-Islam's alleged crimes and will soon approve a charge sheet, but in September it postponed [JURIST report] his trial for five months so the prosecution could obtain additional evidence from al-Senussi.

Apple and Samsung have been embroiled in continuous patent litigation in courts around the world. On Monday Apple appealed a Tokyo District Court ruling [JURIST report] which dismissed Apple's claim that Samsung had infringed on its patents. Last week the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an injunction [JURIST report] issued by the US District Court for the Northern District of California against Samsung in an ongoing patent dispute with Apple. In September the Federal Circuit similarly ordered [JURIST report] the Northern District of California to reconsider an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 [product backgrounder]. Only a week prior, Apple filed a motion [JURIST report] with the Northern District of California to prohibit Samsung from selling products in the US that supposedly infringe on Apple's patents. Also in September, Samsung announced [JURIST report] that it will be adding the iPhone5 [product backgrounder] to a new patent infringement suit against Apple.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled [opinion] in July that there was no First Amendment [text] right applicable to protect the interviews. "To be clear, even if participants had been made aware of the limits of any representation about non-disclosure, Moloney and Mclntyre had no First Amendment basis to challenge the subpoenas. Appellants simply have no constitutional claim and so that portion of the complaint was also properly dismissed." Boston College ended its appeals after the First Circuit decision, but the two journalists who spearheaded the project, Ed Moloney [official profile] and Anthony McIntyre [official website] have continued to fight the subpoena. The British government is seeking the records of interviews with Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price. Hughes has since died, and Boston College has released those files. Price interviewed solely with McIntyre on the condition of complete confidentiality, and portions of her interview related to IRA materials are only known to McIntyre. Several US congress members [materials list] have expressed support for McIntyre and Moloney, fearing the revelation of Price's interviews will unsettle the peace between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and violate the Good Friday Agreement [text, PDF].

Abortion continues to be debated internationally. Two weeks ago a court in Alaska upheld a state law [JURIST report] requiring women under the age of 18 to notify their parents if they intend to get an abortion. Earlier that week a federal court in Arizona heard arguments [JURIST report] on the constitutionality of a state law that prohibits government funding to facilities that perform abortions. Earlier in October the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] upheld an Ohio law [JURIST report] limiting the use of RU-486, better known as the "abortion pill." In August South Korea's constitutional court upheld [JURIST report] its abortion ban. Last year voters in Liechtenstein rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to legalize abortion in the country after the acting Head of State expressed displeasure with the law and threatened to veto the proposed change. In 2010 the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] criticized [JURIST report] the restrictive abortion laws of the Philippines as a "human rights crisis," resulting in the death of thousands of women annually.

Through this case the Commission has sought to protect the best interests of the child. Given the high numbers of children in care, who need a family in Northern Ireland, the importance of this case in widening the pool of prospective parents cannot be overstated. We are therefore delighted with this outcome. It brings Northern Ireland law in line with the rest of the UK and means that couples who are not married, those in civil partnerships and same sex couples will be now be allowed to apply to adopt. Mr Justice Treacy agreed with the Commission that preventing someone from even being considered to adopt because of their relationship status is a discriminatory practice.

The controversy surrounding the rights of same-sex couples has been ongoing across Europe in recent months. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault told a French television station in June that laws legalizing marriage and adoption for same-sex couples [JURIST report] will soon be introduced in France. In March, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the right of a person in a same-sex partnership to adopt his or her partner's child is not protected by the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF].

Immigration law [JURIST backgrounder] has became a hot button issue over the past few years as many states have passed laws giving state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] in September denied a request for a new injunction against a controversial provision of Arizona's immigration law [SB 1070, PDF] which requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons they stop or arrest if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally. In August 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 in Arizona v. United States [JURIST report]. Last May the American Civil Liberties Union (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.