The Obama administration charged Vides [JURIST report] in April with human rights crimes and sought to deport him. He had been living in Florida since the conclusion of his term as defense minister in 1988. In 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a $55 million verdict [JURIST report] against him and another former Salvadoran general, Jose Guillermo Garcia, in a civil suit for torture and human rights violations. The verdict had previously been thrown out for failure to file within the 10-year statute of limitations but was reinstated because of "extraordinary circumstances." In 2000, however, the US lost in a jury trial [NYTimes report] when attempting to prosecute Vides and Garcia for the killing of the four American women in 1980. After that case, one juror explained that they did not believe the generals were directly responsible for the killings or that they could have done anything to stop them.

This is the latest controversy in the case against Mladic [JURIST news archive]. Earlier this month, the ICTY further delayed [JURIST report] the beginning of the trial until May 14. In December of last year, a three-judge panel for the ICTY accepted a request brought by prosecutors to reduce the number of crimes [JURIST report] they intend to prove against Mladic from 196 to 106. In October, the ICTY prosecutor refused to seek further appeal [JURIST report] of the tribunal's refusal to split Mladic's trial into separate actions: one for his conduct during the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive], where approximately 8,000 people were killed, and one for all of his other charges during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive]. Mladic made his first appearance [JURIST report] at the ICTY in June, contesting the charges while simultaneously asking for more time to review them, which he was granted. Before that, he had lost his final appeal [JURIST report] in Serbia to avoid extradition and was transported to The Hague.

Samantar appealed his case multiple times, claiming immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [28 US Chapter 97 text] and other common law defenses. Last year, the district court ruled that no immunity privileges under any of theses laws applied. The case made it to the US Supreme Court [official website] in 2010, which decided that the FSIA did not extend immunities to foreign leaders in civil cases. This ruling overturned the district court's 2007 decision to dismiss the case on grounds that the FSIA granted Samantar immunity.

It appears unlikely to have adequately either documented the conflict's serious crimes or identified those responsible on both sides after only a month of investigations. ... In meetings with Human Rights Watch, Ivorian civil society. representatives, United Nations officials, and diplomats highlighted serious problems with the commission. They cited its failure to include representation from pro-Gbagbo groups and to consult sufficiently with civil society.

Earlier this week, International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] was granted permission [JURIST report] by a pretrial chamber to expand his investigation of war crimes in the Ivory Coast to incidents dating back to 2002. In December, former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo [BBC profile] appeared before the Pre-Trial Chamber III of the ICC [JURIST report] for an initial hearing. During the hearing the court verified Gbagbo's identity and ensured that he was informed of the four charges against him, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and rape and other forms of sexual violence allegedly committed during last year's post-election violence in the Ivory Coast. Gbagbo was taken into custody [JURIST report] in November for his upcoming appearance before the court. In October, Moreno-Ocampo traveled to the Ivory Coast [JURIST report] to investigate allegations of war crimes committed during post-election violence following the November 2010 elections.

This law will disproportionately injure African-American and Latino voters, who are much less likely than other members of the electorate to possess the required forms of identification and also face disproportionately greater burdens in obtaining such identification. As a result, African-Americans and Latinos are far more likely than other Wisconsin citizens to have their right to vote denied or abridged by Act 23.

There are now 31 US states [NCSL backgrounder] that require voters to present some form of ID at the polls, including 15 states that require photo ID, but the issue remains controversial. In August, South Carolina's Senate Minority Caucus filed an objection [JURIST report] with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], asking it to reject the state's new voter identification law. In June, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon [official website] vetoed [JURIST report] a law requiring persons to present photo identification at voting booth. In March, the Georgia Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a law requiring voters to present one of six government-issued photo identifications in order to vote. In contrast, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a portion of Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration in October 2010.

[The rule] violates the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ... because it compels Plaintiffs to subsidize conduct in violation of their moral and religious beliefs[,] ... violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by negating the right of Plaintiffs to act in accordance with their beliefs [and] ... works a substantial burden on the Plaintiffs' ability to freely practice their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

There have been numerous challenges [JURIST timeline] to the constitutionality of various provisions of the PPACA. In January, 26 states submitted a brief to the US Supreme Court [official website] challenging the constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid for the poor and disabled in the PPACA. In November, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to rule on health care reform law [JURIST report] in three separate cases, originally reserving five-and-half-hours for oral argument on the issue. The Court agreed to hear two hours of arguments on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate issue in Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The Court will consider Issue 1, which asks, "whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision." The Court also directed parties to brief and argue the question of whether the challenge to PPACA is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act [26 USC § 7421(a)], reserving one hour for argument on that issue. The Court consolidated the cases of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services [docket; cert. petition, PDF] and will hear 90 minutes of oral argument on the question of whether the individual mandate provision can be severed from the remainder of the act. Finally, the court will hear one hour of oral argument on the question of Medicaid expansion.

War crimes and conflict-related human rights violations represent an ongoing international concern. On Wednesday an International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] pretrial chamber granted the request of Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] to expand his investigation of war crimes in the Ivory Coast [JURIST report] to incidents dating back to 2002. In April Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Ivory Coast to investigate human rights violations [JURIST report], including murder and rape, that were reportedly committed by opposing political forces last year. In March a military court in Congo sentenced 11 army officers [JURIST report] to prison for raping more than 20 women in 2010. A month earlier, the same court sentenced a DRC colonel to 20 years in prison [JURIST report] for being involved in mass rapes.

The US military court referred Manning's case for court-martial [JURIST report] in February. A US Army panel of experts declared Manning competent to stand trial [JURIST report] in April. Manning's prosecution has sparked heated debate between defenders and critics. Those who support Manning's actions refer to him as courageous for acting as a whistleblower [advocacy petition] against government crime and corruption. He has been compared to famous US whistleblowers such as Frank Serpico and Daniel Ellsberg [personal websites], who leaked information regarding corruption in the New York Police Department and the Pentagon, respectively. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates [WP profile] has criticized the video [WSJ report], claiming it provides the public a view of warfare "as seen through a soda straw." He noted that public attention was not drawn to what was discovered by US ground forces following the helicopter gunfire, including AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He also said that terrorist organizations are made up of combatants who do not wear enemy uniforms. In August, lawyer Charles Lugosi [profile] wrote that Patriot Act provisions and criminal sanctions placed on whistleblowers like Manning violate the Constitution [JURIST commentary] and fundamentally challenge the legitimacy of the rule of law and American democracy. Lugosi noted that individuals, through websites and social networking, can expose modern injustice and raise the conscious awareness of the public to worthy causes and crusades.

Given the arrestee's diminished privacy interests; the de minimis nature of the physical intrusion entailed in the taking of a buccal swab; the carefully circumscribed scope of the DNA information being extracted; the stringent limits on the manner in which that information may be used; and the well established law enforcement interest in obtaining arrestees' identifying information, and further, to deter future criminal acts and to exculpate innocent arrestees—the balance of interests tilts strongly in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the 2004 Amendment.

Last month the Minnesota Supreme Court [official website] upheld a state statute requiring people convicted of crimes to submit a DNA sample, similarly ruling that such a mandate does not violate the Fourth Amendment [JURIST report] right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In August a California appellate court struck down the 2004 Amendment [JURIST report] to the DNA Act, overturning a misdemeanor conviction for a felon's refusal to provide a DNA sample after confessing to arson. US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal prosecutors in November 2010 to use DNA evidence as much as possible [JURIST report], reversing the previous policy of the Bush administration. In May 2009 the US District Court for the Eastern District of California upheld the constitutionality of mandatory DNA collection [JURIST report] for all persons arrested or detained under federal authority. In March of that year the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a South Carolina law requiring convicted first degree sex offenders to submit to a DNA test and pay $250 in processing fees prior to their release does not violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution [JURIST report].

The verdict for Mubarak's case was set for June 2 [JURIST report] on Wednesday. A day before the prosecution sought death penalty for Mubarak in its closing remarks consistent with their initial announcement [JURIST reports] in January. The parties began to present their cases in January after the court resumed the trial [JURIST reports] in December. The trial was adjourned twice, in October and August [JURIST reports].

Kasper-Ansermet is the judge tasked with investigating two possible suspects believed to be involved in the deaths of around 1.7 million people during the reign of the Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder] regime. The investigation relates to ECCC cases 003 and 004 [materials]. The UN refused to replace [JURIST report] Laurent Kasper-Ansermet in January. ECCC judges, including Blunk, have been criticized for allegedly failing to conduct impartial investigations. Cambodia has argued that the trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders is a Cambodian issue and should not be a matter of international concern. Also in October, defense lawyers for accused Khmer Rouge leader Nuon Chea filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen [BBC profile] for interfering with the UN-backed war crimes tribunal. Nuon's lawyers accused the prime minister of criminally conspiring to block some of the defense witnesses from testifying [Reuters report] and consequently interfering with his right to a fair trial. In September, the ECCC ordered the trials be split into a series of smaller trials [JURIST report].

In conclusion, section 354.4 expresses a distinct point of view on a specific matter of foreign policy. Its effect on foreign affairs is not incidental; rather, section 354.4 is, at its heart, intended to send a political message on an issue of foreign affairs by providing relief and a friendly forum to a perceived class of foreign victims. Nor is the statute merely expressive. Instead, the law imposes a concrete policy of redress for "Armenian Genocide victim[s]," subjecting foreign insurance companies to suit in California by overriding forum-selection provisions and greatly extending the statute of limitations for a narrowly defined class of claims. Thus, section 354.4 "has a direct impact upon foreign relations and may well adversely affect the power of the central government to deal with those problems." ... Section 354.4 therefore intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive power to conduct and regulate foreign affairs.

The Armenian genocide remains a contentious issue in US law and politics. In August 2010, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] unanimously dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the exclusion of materials questioning the Armenian genocide from a school curriculum. In March 2010, the Obama administration announced its opposition to a resolution [JURIST report] labeling the World War I-era killings as genocide. The announcement came after the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the resolution [JURIST report] by a vote of 23-22. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Teyyip Erdogan condemned the resolution, and the Turkish government recalled its ambassador to the US.

Clergy and faith-based leaders, community leaders, civic organizations, civil rights groups, and citizens from across our State have reached the same conclusion that Americans in seven other states have reached—it is possible to protect individual civil marriage rights and religious freedom equally.

Maryland joins a number of other states working to pass legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier this week, Washington state legalized same-sex marriage [JURIST report] after Governor Christine Gregoire signed the legislation. New Jersey is also considering legalizing same-sex marriage soon, although it currently has a civil union system in place. Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed a same-sex marriage bill [JURIST report] last week and called for a voter referendum to decide the issue, rather than the state legislature. In November, a lawsuit [JURIST report] was allowed to continue in New Jersey, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the state civil union law as a contravention of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the New Jersey State Constitution. Same-sex marriage has also been legalized in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia [JURIST reports].