Tunisia has faced political turmoil since former President Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] left office amid nationwide protests in 2011. In October, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called on Tunisian authorities to investigate a series of attacks [JURIST report] by religious extremists, and to bring those responsible to justice. In August, the UN Working Group on the discrimination against women in law and in practice [official website] urged the Tunisian government to ensure that women's rights are protected [JURIST report] in line with the nation's international human rights obligations. In October 2011, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] emphasized the importance of adherence to the rule of law [JURIST report] as Tunisia moves forward with its new government.

The use of drone strikes by the US has come under scrutiny in recent months. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter [JURIST report] to Senator Rand Paul suggesting that a drone strike on US soil would be legal only in extraordinary circumstances following a lengthy filibuster by the Senator in the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director. In January, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson announced that he will begin investigating [JURIST report] the legality of the use of drone strikes. Following a request to allow an independent investigation [JURIST report] into the use of targeted killings last year, Emmerson stated that there is still no consensus among the international community as to the legality of the conduct. Also in January, Pakistan's foreign Affairs Minister condemned US drone attacks [JURIST report] as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and international law. In December, the US Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging the US government's targeted killing of three US citizens in drone strikes.

Under international safeguards adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and reaffirmed by the General Assembly, capital punishment may be imposed only for "the most serious crimes" and only after the most rigorous judicial process. As I pointed out to the Government of Saudi Arabia before the men were executed, neither of those fundamental criteria appear to have been fulfilled in these cases. The term "most serious crimes" has been interpreted to mean that the death penalty—in the relatively few countries where it is still used—should only be applied to the crime of murder or intentional killing. In this particular case, no crime of murder or intentional killing was committed. Thus, the use of the death penalty in these seven cases constitutes violations of the international safeguards in the use of the death penalty. I am also extremely concerned that the death sentences were imposed largely based on initial confessions allegedly extracted under torture, and that the allegations of torture were not investigated. Such acts constitute a violation of international human rights law, as well as customary law that prohibits the use of torture.

Saudi Arabia has recently come under international scrutiny for multiple perceived human rights violations, particularly for conducting unfair trials against human rights activists. Earlier this month, a Saudi Arabian court sentenced two human rights activists to ten years in prison. A Saudi Arabian court in January convicted [JURIST report] prominent Egyptian human rights lawyer Ahmed el-Gezawi of smuggling drugs and sentenced him to five years imprisonment and 300 lashes. El-Gezawi's arrest sparked protests by those who believe the activist was arrested for insulting King Abdullah. In December, HRW urged Saudi Arabia to drop apostasy charges [JURIST report] against a website editor who co-founded the religious discussion website Free Saudi Liberals, claiming that his arrest violated his right to freedom of expression. In August several international human rights groups sent a letter to the Saudi Ministry of Justice [official website, in Arabic] seeking to observe the trials of four rights activists [JURIST report] who faced charges of defaming the country's reputation, supporting international human rights groups and sparking demonstrations against the government.

The Pashtun tribes of the [Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)] area have suffered enormously under the drone campaign. These proud and independent people have been self-governing for generations, and have a rich tribal history that has been too little understood in the West. Their tribal structures have been broken down by the military campaign in FATA and by the use of drones in particular. It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other States.

The use of drone strikes by the US both internationally and within its own territory has come under scrutiny in recent months. Earlier this week, JURIST Guest Columnist Anthony D'Amato of the Northwestern University School of Law criticized [JURIST comment] the US government for ignoring fundamental habeas corpus rights to conduct drone strikes on American soil. In January, Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Minister Hina Rabbani Khar condemned US drone attacks [JURIST report] as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and international law. In December, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit challenging the US government's targeted killing of three US citizens in drone strikes. In July Pakistan's Ambassador to the US called upon the US to end the practice [JURIST report] of using drone strikes in targeted killings. That same month US lawmakers expressed concern [JURIST report] over the use of drone strikes. JURIST Guest Columnist Samar Warsi of the Muslim Civil Liberties Union recently argued that the Obama administration's drone policy sets a dangerous precedent [JURIST comment] and undermines national security.