A soldier with the US Army was sentenced on Sept. 23 for his role in murdering an unarmed teenage Afghan civilian. Pvt. Andrew Holmes was sentenced to seven years in prison as part of a plea deal that he agreed to the day before. Holmes pleaded guilty to shooting the civilian, but pleaded not guilty to previous charges of premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Holmes also pleaded guilty to one count each of possessing a finger bone of the victim and using marijuana. As part of the deal, Holmes will receive 499 days of time served and will be dishonorably discharged from the Army. Holmes is the third soldier to strike a plea deal of the five charged with murder as part of a plot contrived with fellow soldiers to kill Afghan civilians, which took place between January and May of last year in Afghanistan's Kandahar province. Holmes has alleged that his co-defendant, Spc. Jeremy Morlock, ordered soldiers to fire at villagers. Morlock pleaded guilty n March to three counts of murder, as well as one count each of assault, conspiracy, obstructing justice and illegal drug use in exchange for a maximum sentence of 24 years in prison.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Sept. 21 suggested a need for UN intervention in Belarus and demanded the regime free non-violent political prisoners. Although Belarus is an active member of the UN and has ratified many of its human rights policies, Pillay noted a sharp deterioration in human rights since the 2010 disputed re-election of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has been in power for 17 years since his 1994 election. Pillay said that citizens have been discouraged from protesting and have not received fair trials, accusing the administration of "a policy of harassment against non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders." The report also cited Belarus as the only European nation to still enforce the death penalty. Pillay called for an investigation into alleged abuses of the judicial system and the acceptance of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) mission to Belarus. In response, ambassador Mikhail Khvostov for Belarus said his country disagrees on what constitutes a peaceful demonstration, and that Belarus is committed to human rights.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan on Sept. 19 lifted an injunction on damages levied against US oil giant Chevron, making the company potentially liable for $8.6 billion in compensation to Ecuadoran citizens for an oil spill in the 1990s. The award will not be granted immediately, pending appeals in Ecuador and a decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Chevron responded by insisting it is the victim of fraud: "There is no legitimate evidence supporting any finding of liability against Chevron because Texaco Petroleum Company cleaned up its share of environmental impacts in Ecuador and the remaining impacts are the responsibility of the government of Ecuador and its state-owned oil company, Petroecuador." Jim Tyrrell, attorney for the Ecuadorans, countered: "We are very excited that the court has reached this decision. It represents a triumph of the rule of law over the sensationalism created by Chevron's PR department." (San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 20)

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta ruled Sept. 19 that a 17-year sentence was not enough for Jose Padilla, convicted on terrorism-related charges. Padilla and co-defendants Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi had appealed their convictions, and federal prosecutors appealed the sentence given by US district court Judge Marcia Cooke. Upholding all three convictions and ordering a new sentencing hearing for Padilla, the court explained:

Tunisia announced its intention Sept. 14 to plead for the return of its remaining citizens being held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. A Justice Ministry representative, speaking at a conference in Tunis, called for the repatriation of the five Tunisian detainees still being held at the prison and indicated the nation's intention to send a mission to the US to achieve their release. The conference was organized by Reprieve, a British humanitarian and legal action group that seeks to enforce human rights and due process for prisoners worldwide.

The US Court of Military Commission Review on Sept. 9 ruled (PDF) that Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al-Bahlul, media secretary of Osama bin Laden, was properly convicted of being a propagandist and should spend the rest of this life in prison. The 7-0 vote rejects the 2009 appeal (PDF) of his conviction and life sentence for conspiring with al-Qaeda, soliciting murder and providing material support for terrorism. His Pentagon-appointed defense lawyers argued that his constitutional rights were violated because a supposed al Qaeda recruitment film he released is protected speech under the First Amendment.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Sept. 8 announced its findings from a three-year investigation that the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD) has engaged in repeated unlawful and unconstitutional behavior. The investigation, which began in June 2008, uncovered the PRPD use of excessive and unreasonable force, failure to protect First Amendment rights, and unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests. In its executive summary report (PDF), the DoJ acknowledged that the rights violations corresponded with a period of increased crime and pressure on the PRPD. However, such circumstances did not excuse the misconduct:

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 6 affirmed the 2010 denial of petition for a writ of habeas corpus for Guantánamo Bay detainee Shawali Khan. Khan is an Afghan citizen who, at the time of his capture in mid-November 2002, lived in Kandahar, and is accused of belonging to Hezb-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), an active Afghan insurgency group with ties to the Taliban. On appeal, Khan contended there is insufficient reliable evidence in the form of government-offered intelligence reports to establish that he was part of HIG at the time of his capture. The court explained its standard of review in evaluating Khan's appeal: