Last month Al-Mahmoudi requested that the UN create a "high-level commission" to investigate alleged human rights abuses [JURIST report] by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website]. Although NATO was mandated by the UN to use force in order to stop Muammar Gaddafi from fomenting violence upon Libyan citizens, the campaign has allegedly gone beyond the scope of protecting civilians and recently led to the death of 85 civilians in one night after NATO forces bombed a residential area supposedly housing a rebel command center. In June, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] decided to extend a mandate to an investigative panel instructing it to continue its investigation of human rights abuses in Libya, after it published a 92-page report [JURIST reports]. The report claims Libyan authorities have committed crimes against humanity such as acts constituting murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberties, torture, forced disappearances and rape "as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack."

The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information [official website, in German] also filed a complaint over Facebook's facial recognition system in August, arguing that it violates European data protection laws [JURIST report]. In December South Korea stated that Facebook was not in compliance with the nation's data privacy laws [JURIST report]. The South Korean authorities especially took issue with Facebook's alleged policy of gathering users' data without first obtaining consent from them. The Canadian Office of the Privacy Commissioner [official website] announced in January 2010 that it would launch a probe [JURIST report] into complaints that the website was violating users' privacy. In August 2009 five Facebook users brought suit against Facebook in California, alleging that the social networking violated their privacy [JURIST report].

Subedi also reported that human rights in Cambodia are improving. As part of the mission to promote human rights, the UN-backed Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] continues to try suspects accused of genocide and related crimes committed under the Khmer Rouge regime [BBC backgrounder] during its reign in Cambodia from 1975-1979. Last week, the ECCC ordered the trials of four alleged Khmer Rouge leaders be split into a series of smaller trials [JURIST report] to allow the tribunal to deliberate more quickly in the case. A week earlier, the ECCC concluded three days of hearings [JURIST report] aimed at determining whether two of the four Khmer Rouge leaders were fit enough to stand trial on accusations of genocide and other war crimes. The four leaders include Nuon Chea, who was Pol Pot's second-in-command and the group's chief ideologist, former head of state Khieu Samphan, ex-foreign minister Ieng Sary, and his wife, Ieng Thirith [case profiles, PDFs], who served as minister for social affairs. All four pleaded not guilty to charges including crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, religious persecution, homicide and torture.

Complicating his prosecution is the controversial history of al-Nashiri's detention. Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] agents confirmed [Spiegel report] in 2010 the existence of a secret CIA black site [JURIST news archive] in Poland, where al-Nashiri was allegedly waterboarded and subjected to mock executions. According to one agent, al-Nashiri was stripped naked and hooded before a gun and a drill were held close to his head. The allegations led the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) [advocacy website] to launch an abuse investigation [JURIST report] in September 2010. Section 948r of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 [text, PDF] prohibits the use in military courts of evidence obtained through "torture or cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment," a provision that could implicate potential limitations on the prosecutors' ability to use certain evidence if it can be established that al-Nashiri was subjected to such treatment in Poland or at Gitmo. Former Polish prime minister Leszek Miller denied any knowledge of such a facility [JURIST report]. Most recently, Polish prosecutors, who began investigating the potential existence of the Polish CIA prison in 2008, asked US officials [JURIST reports] to question al-Nashiri and fellow detainee Abu Zubaydah about the existence of the facility, saying their testimony was essential to establishing its existence. Relatedly, in 2007 a federal judge ruled that Sudan was liable [JURIST report] in a civil suit for government actions that "induced" the USS Cole bombing.

Individuals accused of participating in the Rwandan genocide continue to face trial, both in Rwandan courts and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website]. Earlier this week, the Appeals Chamber for the ICTR heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case of Aloys Ntabakuze [HJP profile], a former Rwandan army officer convicted of genocide and related crimes.The Trial Chamber of the ICTR charged and convicted [judgment, PDF] Ntabakuze in a case known as "Military I" that joined two other former army officers. The same day, the ICTR also heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the appeal of Dominique Ntawukulilyayo, the former Sub-Prefect of the southern region of Gisagara. Ntawukulilyayo was indicted [case materials] in 2005 on charges of genocide, complicity in genocide and public incitement to commit genocide for falsely promising protection to ethnic minority Tutsi refugees, all of which occurred during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In June, the ICTR transferred the case [JURIST report] of former Rwandan pastor Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi [Hague Justice profile] to Rwanda to be tried in the Rwandan national court system. Last year, the ICTR transferred the cases of 25 suspects [JURIST report], who had been investigated but not yet indicted by the ICTR and who were believed to be in hiding abroad, to Rwandan authorities.

that there is a substantial likelihood that the United States will succeed on the merits of its claim that Sections 11(a), 13, 16, and 17 of H.B. 56 are preempted by federal law. The court further finds that the United States will suffer irreparable harm if these sections of H.B. 56 are not enjoined, the balance of equities favors the entry of an injunction, and its entry would not be adverse to the public interest. Therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be granted as to these sections.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], joined by several rights groups, appeared before the court last month [JURIST report] to make arguments against the law's enactment, at which point Blackburn issued the temporary injunction to forestall enactment of the challenged provisions while she evaluated their contention with federal statute. Religious groups and representatives of several rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy websites] have stated that the Alabama law is the most extreme of the recent state anti-immigration laws influenced by controversial Arizona SB 1070 [JURIST news archive]. Alabama lawmakers have defended the legislation, which was signed into law [JURIST reports] in June. Since that time, 16 countries filed briefs [JURIST report] in the Alabama district court against the controversial law, arguing that it provides unfair treatment to citizens of those countries currently residing in Alabama and sanctions discriminatory treatment based on ethnicity.

In August, Ouattara set up a commission of inquiry [JURIST report] to investigate crimes and human rights violations that took place during the violence. Ivory Cost Justice Minister Jeannot Ahoussou Kouadio signed an agreement [JURIST report] with the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] in June, allowing an investigation into political violence to proceed and pledging cooperation with the ICC. Earlier that month, an official for the UN's International Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation [JURIST report] into Ouattara and his forces' continuing attacks against supporters of ousted leader Gbagbo. In April, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Ouattara to conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged atrocities carried out by his forces in its attempts to secure the presidency. According to the report, the Republican Force of Ivory Coast killed more than 100 civilians, raped at least 20 supporters of Gbagbo and burned at least 10 villages in March. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] also reported the deaths of at least 800 civilians [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast town of Duekoue as a result of intercommunal violence.

Abortion is generally illegal throughout the heavily Roman Catholic country, with exceptions only for cases of rape. Mexico City previously loosened the country's restriction to allow abortions when the health of the mother was in danger. Conservatives in the country, including President Felipe Calderon [official website, in Spanish] and his National Action Party (PAN) [party website, in Spanish] are strongly opposed to any relaxation of abortion law. Others say that the current laws endanger poor women who, unlike wealthier Mexicans, cannot afford to travel to the US for the surgery and so must resort to unsafe back-alley abortions. In 2006, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] conducted an extensive study of abortion availability for rape victims in Mexico [study text], finding that those seeking legal abortions often are intimidated with insults and threats of legal retaliation by both prosecutors and health workers.

I realise that this decision will be a severe disappointment to members of M's family who have endured years of anguish during which they have demonstrated their deep devotion to M. ... I urge everyone concerned with M—doctors, care staff, and her family—to work together to agree on a revised care plan which gives her an opportunity of more positive experiences.

The right to die has been a highly contentious issue around the world. Last month, the Supreme Court of British Columbia [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a right to die suit for lack of standing. The suit challenged the constitutionality of a provision of section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada [text], which criminalizes assisted suicide. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India [official website] rejected a petition for mercy killing [JURIST report] but ruled that passive euthanasia was permissible under certain circumstances. The German Federal Court of Justice [official website, in German] ruled in October that removing a patient from life support is not a criminal offense [JURIST report] if the terminal individual had previously given consent. The year before, the Supreme Court of Western Australia [official website] upheld the right to die [JURIST report] in a case involving a quadriplegic who asked to be removed from food and hydration services.

Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe the challenges to [PPACA]—like the one in the Eleventh Circuit—will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.

Lawsuits involving the constitutionality of the PPACA have led to split decisions in federal courts across the country. Earlier this month, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [official website] found the individual mandate provision unconstitutional [JURIST report]. Also this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] dismissed two lawsuits [JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA. In Virginia v. Sebelius, the court held that Virginia lacked standing to sue and vacated the judgment of the district court [JURIST report], remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In Liberty University v. Geithner, the court ruled that the suit was filed prematurely, also vacating the lower court ruling [JURIST report], which had declared the act constitutional. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [JURIST report] brought by a physician organization for lack of standing.