Despite increased international efforts, Somali pirates continue to be a concern in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. In late September, a court in the Somali state of Puntland sentenced a pirate to death [JURIST report] for murdering the skipper of cargo ship in June. Also last month, a Kenyan court convicted [JURIST report] seven Somali pirates and sentenced them to five years in prison. Earlier in September, a Kenyan court convicted [JURIST report] seven other Somali pirates, giving them the same five-year sentences. The maximum sentence under Kenyan law for piracy is life imprisonment, and the EU Naval Force Somalia (EU NAVFOR) [official website], a naval force that has been deployed to deal with the surge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, refuses to turn over suspects unless capital punishment is off the table. In July, a court in Seychelles convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] a group of Somali pirates to 10 years in prison following the attempted hijacking of Seychelles coastguard ship. In June, the UN announced the opening of a new high-security courtroom [JURIST report] in Kenya that will hear piracy cases. The announcement came after the UN announced $9.3 million in donations [JURIST report] to help fund piracy courts in Kenya and Seychelles.

First, the court overlooked the numerous provisions of the Act protecting manufacturers from liability, but it did not expressly preempt design defect claims. Second, the court misconstrued the word "unavoidable" in section 22(b)(1)'s Federal law defense. And third, the court adopted a policy that exposes children to unnecessary safety risks.

In Harrington v. Richter [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether a defense counsel's reliance on cross-examination in lieu of forensic evidence violates the client's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Granting federal habeas corpus review, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] in an en banc rehearing that Richter's counsel "failed to undertake the most elementary task that a responsible defense attorney would perform" by not presenting forensic analysis of a blood pool found at the scene of a murder Richter is accused of committing. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeals, and the US District Court for the Eastern District of California had all previously rejected the application. Counsel for the petitioner argued that "the Ninth Circuit failed to give the State court decision the proper deference—indeed, double deference—it was owed. Counsel for the respondent argued that a different verdict could have been reached if there had been forensic analysis of the blood pool.

In Premo v. Moore [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the court heard arguments on whether the standard established in Arizona v. Fulminante [opinion text]—that erroneous admission of a coerced confession at trial is not harmless—applies if a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea and whether that is clearly established under federal law. The Ninth Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF] the district court's decision to deny Moore's writ of habeas corpus. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

The court of appeals held that Arizona v. Fulminante was the clearly established Federal law to control and govern the outcome of this case. This was an error, because this Court has never applied Fulminante's direct appeal harmless error standard, which places the burden of proof on the government, to a collateral ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where the burden of proof is on the inmate.

Besigye's trial resumed in June 2007 after a one-year delay [JURIST report]. In April 2007, Uganda's chief prosecutor Simon Byabakama Mugenyi told the court that files detailing the intelligence gathering efforts [JURIST report] against Besigye had been "misplaced." The existence of the PRA is disputed, and the Ugandan government has been accused of fabricating the group's existence to support its crackdown on political opponents. In March 2007, Ugandan judges went on strike [JURIST report] to protest an incident in which government security agents surrounded a courthouse, rearrested six opposition supporters who had been charged with treason but granted bail, and beat a defendant's lawyer unconscious. The incident also prompted lawyers to strike [JURIST report], and Museveni promised to implement more transparent procedures for making arrests [JURIST report].

In Bond v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether a criminal defendant, who has been convicted under a federal statute, has standing to challenge the conviction on grounds that the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Bond lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. The appeals court added that claims that the statute is vague and overboard fall short and that Bond was appropriately punished for her offenses.

The court will also hear the case of Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment [text] when they petitioned the government on matters of private concern. The Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that government employees can sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment. The ruling was in direct contradiction to decisions by all 10 other federal circuits and four state supreme courts.

In DePierre v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the term "cocaine base" encompasses every form of cocaine that is classified chemically as a base, which would mean that the same 10-year mandatory minimum sentence applies to offenses involving 50 to 500 grams of raw coca leaves or of the paste derived from coca leaves, or whether the term "cocaine base" is limited to "crack" cocaine. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the statute intends for the term "cocaine base" to include all forms of cocaine base, including, but not limited to, crack cocaine.

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for actively inducing patent infringement under 35 USC § 271(b) [text] is "deliberate indifference of a known risk" to encourage an infringement. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that is the correct legal standard. The petitioners contend that this was in error, due to the court's previous finding that "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct" to encourage an infringement is the appropriate standard.

Finally, the court will also hear the case of Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The court will determine whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes and whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that Oneida Indian Nation is immune.

Online piracy has assumed increasing importance in the eyes of legislators across Europe, and many countries have considered legislation that would allow the suspension of Internet services in order to deter internet piracy. In April, the UK Parliament [official website] approved legislation [text, JURIST report] authorizing the suspension of Internet service for those who repeatedly download copyrighted material illegally. The act also received Royal Assent [text] and is now law. The Digital Economy Bill calls on internet service providers (ISPs) to block download sites, reduce a user's broadband speeds, and ultimately shut down a user's internet access in order to prevent piracy of copyrighted materials. Last October, the French Constitutional Court approved a similar bill after the legislation was given final approval by the French Parliament [JURIST reports] the previous month. Under the French law, the government can send notices to Internet service providers to terminate an individual's internet access for up to one year after a third violation of intellectual property laws for downloading or sharing movies and music.

This most recent lawsuit joins two others filed [JURIST report] earlier this year challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] by Brewer in April, has caused intense controversy. In May, a group of UN human rights experts indicated the measure may violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US. Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, in Spanish] has strongly criticized [JURIST report] the new law, claiming that it opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama also criticized the law [JURIST report], and called for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

The inquests were delayed five years by the police investigation and a criminal trial of three other men suspected of being involved. The three others were later acquitted of involvement in the bombings, but two of them were found guilty and sentenced on lesser charges [JURIST reports]. Last April, lawyers for victims of the July 7 bombings argued [JURIST report] in the Royal Courts of Justice that UK authorities possessed information that could have helped them prevent the attacks. The theory for the case is built on intelligence that British security service MI5 [official website] and the London police had uncovered about the four suicide bombers prior to the attacks. In 2008, The UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal [JURIST report] by four men convicted for plotting a failed similar bombing [JURIST news archive] supposed to occur two weeks afterward on July 21, 2005.

Companies have been charged with criminal negligence in the context of other chemical spills in the past, the most notable of which are in relation to the 1984 Bhopal chemical spill disaster [BBC backgrounder]. In August, the Indian Supreme Court announced that it will reconsider [JURIST report] a 1996 ruling allowing former employees of US chemical producer Union Carbide accused in relation to the 1984 chemical spill to be charged with negligence instead of culpable homicide. Seven men were convicted in June [JURIST report] on charges of "death by negligence" and sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay USD $2,100. The convictions were the first related to the Bhopal disaster in which nearly 3,800 people were killed when toxic gas was accidentally released in the middle of the night by a chemical plant owned by a Union Carbide subsidiary company. Upwards of 15,000 others later died from exposure to the gas, and 50,000 were left permanently disabled.

In 2009, the FDLR leadership decided to attack civilians in the North and South Kivu provinces [of the DRC] in order to create a massive humanitarian catastrophe; the FDLR then tried to blackmail the international community and to extort concessions of political power, in exchange for ending the atrocities. As a result of this deadly blackmail, victims were killed, raped, and forcibly displaced, and entire villages were razed to the ground.

Last week, UN peacekeepers and DRC forces arrested [JURIST report] rebel group Mai Mai Cheka [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] leader Lieutenant Colonel Sadoke Kokunda Mayele for allegedly leading mass rapes [JURIST news archive], along with the FDLR and other rebel groups, in the DRC in late July and early August. Earlier this month, the UN released a report on war crimes [text, PDF; JURIST report] and human rights abuses in the DRC. The report, originally expected to be released in September [JURIST report], lists 617 of the most serious violations of human rights, including violence against children, genocide and mass rape, committed between 1993 and 2003. Last month, the UN Security Council [official website] issued a statement condemning the recent mass rapes [text; JURIST report] and calling for justice for the victims. Also last month, the UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict called for perpetrators of mass rapes, including heads of DRC militias, to face war crimes charges [JURIST report]. In 2008, Mbarushimana was arrested by German border police [JURIST report] as he attempted to travel to Russia on charges that he killed 32 people during the Rwandan genocide. In 2005, the UN asked France to bring genocide charges [JURIST report] against Mbarushimana, who was then in the country under refugee status. Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [official website], refused to charge him and said the ICTR did not file an indictment against Mbarushimana because it lacked sufficient evidence against him.

Last month, a Chinese lawmaker said that the National People's Congress [official website, in Chinese] did not consider removing [JURIST report] the death penalty as a punishment for corruption during the consideration of an amendment to the criminal code. Earlier this year, the Supreme People's Court of China [official website, in Chinese] issued new guidelines for limiting capital punishment [JURIST report] in Chinese courts. In August, Capital punishment advocates in Switzerland began collecting signatures in support of a referendum [text, in German; JURIST report] to reinstate the death penalty for those convicted of murder. In March, Taiwanese Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng [official profile] resigned in defense of her position against the death penalty [JURIST report]. Though Taiwan has not executed a criminal since 2005, Wang said she would not sign the execution warrants of any of the 44 prisoners still on death row. Last month, a South Korean high court ruled that the death penalty does not violate the South Korean constitution [JURIST report]. The court's decision could lead to a reinstatement of the death penalty in South Korea, which has held an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment since 1998. Earlier this year, Mongolian President Elbegdorj Tsakhia [official profile] announced that he would suspend the death penalty [JURIST report] and commute the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to 30 years in prison. UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze [official profile] has praised the increase in the number of countries [JURIST report] that have suspended or abolished the death penalty. Speaking at the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty [FIDH backgrounder] in Geneva last month, Ordzhonikidze expressed hope that countries that have not abolished the death penalty would adopt the 2007 UN Resolution 62/149 [text], placing a moratorium on the use of capital punishment.

Serbia has undertaken an ongoing effort to apprehend those responsible for the atrocities that occurred in the region over the last two decades. Last month, the War Crimes Chamber sentenced [press release, PDF; JURIST report] former paramilitary officer Zeljko Djukic [JURIST news archive] to 20 years in prison for his involvement in the deaths of 14 civilians in March 1999 during the 1998-1999 Kosovo war [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In August, Croatian authorities extradited Sretko Kalinic to Serbia for his alleged connection with the 2003 assassination [JURIST reports] of former Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic [BBC obituary; memorial website, in Serbian]. In July, an extradition hearing [JURIST report] for former Bosnian president Ejup Ganic began in London to determine whether the former leader should be forced to face trial in Serbia for alleged war crimes. In April, Swedish police arrested a Serbian man [JURIST report] suspected of committing war crimes in the Kosovo village of Cuska during the war. In March, a spokesperson for Serbia's Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor announced the arrest of nine individuals [JURIST report] suspected of being members of the Serbian paramilitary group Sakali and accused of the systematic murders of 41 ethnic Albanians in May 1999. The continuing attempt to find all individuals responsible for the atrocities has created a new political tension [JURIST comment] in the region that will not soon go away.

Even before the controversial law went into effect [JURIST report], there was substantial opposition to the legislation. In March 2007, UN human rights expert Martin Scheinin recommended that the act be amended or repealed [JURIST report]. Also that year, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines urged the government to revisit the act [JURIST report], saying that "many voices are apprehensive" about the anti-terror legislation. In response to criticism, Filipino presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye said that the law had already undergone "exhaustive debates" in the legislature [JURIST report]. The government also announced plans for a "massive public information and advocacy campaign" [press release] to accompany implementation and highlight "the existence of terror cells in the region and throughout the world."

The shooting death has been a source of civil unrest in Greece since 2008. Last year, Greek police [official website, in Greek] conducted raids [JURIST report] in Athens in an effort to avoid a repeat of violent protests on the anniversary of the controversial police shooting. More than 6,000 officers spread across the city, arresting more than 150 people for throwing rocks or vandalism. In March 2009, Amnesty International [advocacy website] said that Greek authorities were not doing enough to ensure that the nation's police respect human rights [JURIST report] and urged the government to investigate and address "long-standing problems of policing." Earlier that month, the Greek government said that it would revamp its police force [JURIST report] in light of the riots. The Greek police have been accused of being both ineffective and unnecessarily violent [JURIST op-ed] in their response to the protests.

Last month, Iraqi Deputy Justice Minister Busho Ibrahim disclosed that a man convicted [JURIST report] of the 2004 kidnapping and murder of British aid worker Margaret Hassan [JURIST news archive] escaped custody [JURIST report] in September 2009. Ali Lutfi Jassar al-Rawi escaped from Abu Ghraib [JURIST news archive], where he was serving a life sentence. Authorities have postponed a hearing of his appeal and may try al-Rawi in absentia if he is not found. In August, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official website] called for Iraq's political leaders to adopt a "higher sense of urgency" [JURIST report] to form a new government, warning that further delays could create more instability. The country has been in disagreement over who has the authority to build the new government since holding elections [JURIST report] earlier this year. The Iraqi Supreme Court ratified the final results [JURIST report] of the country's March parliamentary elections, officially confirming a narrow victory for the secular Iraqiya alliance, led by Iyad Allawi.

The State of Israel is the national state of the Jewish People and is a democratic state in which all its citizens—Jewish and non-Jewish— enjoy fully equal rights. The combination of these two lofty values expresses the foundation of our national life and anyone who would like to join us needs to recognize this. …Where else in the Middle East can Jews and non-Jews live safely with fully equal rights other than in Israel? Democracy and equal civil rights for all citizens, Jews and Arabs, are the soul of Israel.

The Cabinet rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to include language declaring allegiance to a "Jewish, Zionist and democratic" Israel in 2009. Last week, an Israeli district court rejected [JURIST report] Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire's request to gain entry into the country. The ban stems from Maguire's presence on the MV Rachel Corrie when it attempted to deliver aid supplies to the blockaded Gaza Strip [BBC backgrounder] in June. One week earlier, Israeli forces raided [JURIST news archive] several Turkish ships, leaving nine civilians dead. In August, the Turkish Foreign Ministry [official website] announced that it will conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into the incident. The announcement came days after Netanyahu testified [JURIST report] before a civilian commission that Israel did not violate international law. A senior Israeli official announced in July that his government would not cooperate [JURIST report] with an investigation into the incident conducted by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website], but will comply with a separate UN investigation created under the authority of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website]. Earlier in July, an Israeli military probe found that the raid lacked sufficient intelligence and planning [JURIST report], but also concluded that no punishments were necessary.

[T]he Tribunal is not an administrative body. It is a court of law, and as such it will always be prone to a certain degree of unforeseeability, which is a natural element in most kinds of judicial work, and particularly in trials as complicated as those at the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot be wound up as though it were a bakery producing bread. It can only be wound up properly with appropriate sensitivity to the judicial character of its work.

In September, the ICTY announced that the genocide trial of Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] could take another four years [JURIST report] to complete. Also in September, members of the Cambodian government and the UN met with officials for 30 countries [JURIST report] seeking additional funding for the ECCC as the tribunal faced budget shortfalls of $7.4 million and $39 million for 2010 and 2011. That same week, current and former international prosecutors signed the fourth Chautauqua Declaration [text, PDF] praising recent advances in international law and urging countries to continue supporting the international courts [JURIST report] in order to maintain the spirit of the Nuremburg Principles [text]. The prosecutors, who have worked with the ICTY, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) [official websites], the ICTR and the ECCC, as well as the International Military Tribunals, called for continued support and funding of the tribunals as they continue working to maintain the international rule of law. They urged countries to fulfill their obligations under international law by investigating and prosecuting, or transferring to the appropriate court, suspects who violate international criminal law, including sitting heads of state.

The legislation comes as part of a wider campaign by Morales to advance the interests of the majority indigenous community, which has been a theme of his presidency [JURIST report]. In June, the Bolivian National Congress approved [JURIST report] legislation [text, PDF; in Spanish] that will create an independent justice system for indigenous communities. The Law of Judicial Authority is attempting to create a system of "communal justice" that would expedite the settlement of disputes and end the colonization of justice, according to supporters. Opponents in congress criticized the bill as a way in which to get more people from the indigenous population on the courts, regardless of merit. In March 2009, Morales began redistributing land to indigenous farmers under power given to him by the country's new constitution [text, in Spanish]. Bolivia's new constitution went into effect [JURIST report] in February 2009, after being approved [JURIST report] by national referendum the previous month with a 59 percent majority. It is intended to place more power in the hands of the country's indigenous, remove traditional colonial elites from power and challenge US influence. It also creates seats in Congress for minority indigenous groups.

Ameziane is also awaiting the outcome of a complaint filed against the US [JURIST report] in August 2008 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) [official website], which alleges that he has been tortured, given inadequate medical treatment and denied other basic rights. The complaint contends that Ameziane's treatment violates conditions of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man [materials] and that he has been denied timely review of his habeas corpus petition by the US, despite the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush [opinion text; JURIST report] that detainees have the right to bring such petitions.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry [official website] recently submitted findings from its own investigation [JURIST report] to the UNHRC for consideration in the report. In July, an Israeli military probe into the incident found insufficient intelligence and planning of the raid, but concluded that no punishments were necessary [JURIST report]. Israel also established a civilian commission [JURIST report] in June to investigate its response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [official website] testified before the civilian commission [JURIST report] in August and expressed confidence that the commission would find Israeli actions to be in compliance with international law, explaining the Israeli response to the flotilla in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. The incident took place on May 31 when Israeli forces raided six ships attempting to deliver more than 10,000 tons of aid to Gaza.

While the police must be respectful of an individual's Charter rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say would not strike the proper balance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect's interest in being left alone.

The case, Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen [case materials], came to the court on appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia [official website], which had ruled similarly. The case arose from Sinclair's prosecution for a November 2002 murder, for which he was arrested the following month. Following his arrest and during the interview, Sinclair was advised of his right to counsel and spoke with a lawyer twice by phone before indicating that he did not wish to continue speaking with police and again requesting his lawyer. Sinclair was advised that he may remain silent, but that he could not insist on his lawyer's presence. He later made inculpatory statements, agreed to participate in a reenactment of the crime and was convicted of manslaughter. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled [JURIST report] that officers do not have to inform individuals of their right to counsel at DUI checkpoints, a policy also upheld under US law.

Bout's situation has created political tension for Thailand. Russia has shown strong support for Bout, claiming that he is an innocent businessman, while the US is seeking to prosecute him for supporting terrorism. Last week, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva [official website, in Thai; BBC profile] said that, although the case must work its way through the court system, he will make the final decision [AP report] as to whether Bout will be extradited to the US. Lawyers for Bout argue that his safety would be in jeopardy in the US and that he would be unable to receive a fair trial. If convicted in a US court, Bout could be sentenced to life in prison. Bout has been in Thai custody since he was arrested [Interpol press release] in a joint operation carried out by US and Thai authorities in which Bout allegedly sought to sell arms to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) [CFR backgrounder].

By granting the prize to Mr. Liu, the Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means, including his support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. ... We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu as soon as possible.

In February, a Chinese appeals court upheld [JURIST report] Liu's 11-year prison sentence despite calls for his release from US and EU officials. Liu was tried [JURIST report] in December on subversion charges in a trial that lasted only two hours and was closed to foreign diplomats. Liu was formally arrested in June and charged [JURIST reports] in December, but he has been in detention since December 2008, shortly before the petition's release. In June 2009, rights groups marked the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 uprising in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, calling for the government to investigate the incident [JURIST report] and implement changes called for by Charter 08.

Last week, US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official profile] announced new drilling guidelines [JURIST report] designed to increase safety and reduce the likelihood of another catastrophic oil spill. Last month, a federal judge denied [JURIST report] the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by several drilling companies challenging the latest offshore drilling moratorium. The ruling held that there were "no substantial changes" between the July 12 directive and its predecessor, issued on May 28, that the new moratorium did nothing to amend or prevent the wrongs found in the first and that the wrongful behavior alleged in the original order could reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the more recent iteration. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] rejected a request to reinstate [JURIST report] the May 28 ban in July, weeks after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] similarly declined [JURIST report]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] originally asked the appeals court to stay the preliminary injunction [JURIST report] in June, on the basis that another deepwater spill could overwhelm the ongoing efforts to clean up the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill with catastrophic results. Lawyers for the DOJ also claimed that the district judge abused his discretion in issuing the injunction.

[W]e hold that plaintiffs bringing a section 2 VRA challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based on the operation of a state's criminal justice system must at least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent. Our ruling is limited to this narrow issue, and we express no view as to any of the other issues raised by the parties and amici. We also leave for another day the question of whether a plaintiff who has made the required showing would necessarily establish that a felon disenfranchisement law violates section 2.

Washington is in the majority of states in terms of voting rights for convicted felons, as only two states, Maine and Vermont, permit those individuals to vote [San Francisco Chronicle report] without any conditions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], a significant force in the area, released a report in 2008 showing widespread disenfranchisement [JURIST report] among ex-convicts, including a lack of knowledge of state laws regarding voting rights. Earlier that year, the ACLU filed suit [JURIST report] challenging additions to Alabama's felon voting disenfranchisement law made by the state's attorney general. In February 2008, the ACLU filed suit [JURIST report] alleging that a Tennessee law requiring ex-convicts to pay all outstanding legal obligations before being granted the right to vote violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June, an independent UN human rights expert called for the release [JURIST report] of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar, claiming their continued detention "contravenes international human rights law and casts a long shadow over planned elections in the country." Suu Kyi originally challenged the election law [JURIST report] dissolving the NLD in April, but her suit was rejected. In March, the NLD announced that it would not take part in the nation's first elections in 20 years after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected [JURIST reports] a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. In February, the Myanmar Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suu Kyi challenging an 18-month extension to her house arrest imposed last August after Suu Kyi was found to have violated the terms of her house arrest [JURIST reports] after an American swam across a lake to her home.