[JURIST] Over 100,000 people in 130 cities across France protested Saturday against the security policies of President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French]. The protesters called the expulsion of illegal Roma [JURIST report] and a recent burqa ban [JURIST report], xenophobic [Le Monde report, in French] and said they make minority groups scapegoats for France's crime problems. The League of Human Rights [advocacy website, in French] released a statement [text, in French] about the protests, saying "Tens of thousands of demonstrators have expressed their refusal of a politics of fear, xenophobia and divisions they cause. The protesters wanted to give a halt to these dangerous tendencies of democracy, for civil peace and the international reputation of France." In a contrasting official statement [text, in French] the head of France's Ministry of Interior [official website, in French] Brice Hortefeux [official profile, in French] called the protests a disappointment for organizers because of low turnout. He added: Such an eclectic event, which gathered a mosaic of traditional parties, and also small groups of leftists and anarchists, does not reflect policy. Under the pretext of wanting to defend the rights of man, it, in fact, embraces laxity. [...] Under the authority of the President of the Republic, I will continue to work aggressively to roll back all forms of crime and defending the rights of victims, without stigmatizing any community whatsoever.In August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [official website] unveiled a review [press release; JURIST report] of France's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [text]. The report raised questions about draft legislation that would strip naturalized citizens of citizenship for committing certain crimes and a recent decision to dismantle 300 unauthorized Roma encampments. The UN report was revealed a week after riots by members of the Roma community sparked by the shooting of a young man, resulting in the deployment of 300 troops [DW report]. In the same month, the French National Assembly [official website, in French] approved a bill that making it illegal to wear the Islamic burqa or other full face veils in public. Under the legislation, women who wear the veil can be required by police to show their face, and, if they refuse, they can be forced to attend citizenship classes or be charged a USD $185 fine. The legislation also criminalizes forcing a woman to cover her face, with a penalty of one year in prison and a fine of USD $18,555.

[JURIST] Canada has allocated $105 million to build new prison cells at four existing prisons in anticipation of a drastic increase in prisoners over the next several years. The Canadian government's plan [National Post report] envisages the creation of 2,700 new spaces at the prisons within three years, in response to an expected 25 percent increase in the number of people incarcerated. According to a Correctional Service of Canada [official website] spokeswoman, the major catalyst [Ottawa Sun report] for the prisoner influx is the Truth in Sentencing Act [materials], which went into force in February 2010. The act amended Canada's Criminal Code [text; PDF], limiting the credit a judge may allow for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody in order to reduce the punishment to be imposed at sentencing. Prison overcrowding was a problem in Canada even prior to adoption of the Truth in Sentencing Act. In June 2009 Canadian federal correctional investigator Howard Sapers [official profile] reported that the country's prison system was at full capacity [transcript, DOC; JURIST report] and was unable to handle many new prisoners without expanding. Overcrowded prisons have become a problem in other countries as well. In the US, federal judges tentatively ruled [JURIST report] in February that California must reduce its prison population to relieve overcrowding that resulted in inadequate mental and physical health care for inmates. The judges found that a release order was the only appropriate remedy [18 USC § 3626] for the unconstitutional prison conditions. In October, an Arizona federal court ruled [JURIST report] that overcrowded and unhygienic conditions in Maricopa County correctional facilities violated the inmates' constitutional rights, ordering the country sheriff to take appropriate steps to resolve the conditions. In 2007, the UK Ministry of Justice gave authority [JURIST report] to prison governors to grant early release to inmates to relieve overcrowded prisons throughout England and Wales.

[JURIST] The US Court of Military Commission Review [official website] will hear en banc an appeal by former Osama Bin Laden [JURIST news archive] driver Salim Ahmed Hamdan [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] according to media reports. The decision was revealed late Friday in a one-page order [Miami Herald report] given to attorneys working on Hamdan's case. Hamdan was convicted [JURIST report] in August 2008 of providing material support for terrorism [charge sheet, PDF] and sentenced to 66 months of imprisonment, but given credit for 60 months he already spent in US custody. Hamdan's lawyers argue that at the time Hamdan was arrested in 2001, providing material support for terrorism was not a criminal act. Hamdan was released [JURIST report] to his native country Yemen in November 2008 to serve the last month of his prison sentence and is now living freely there. His release alleviated concerns that arose when government lawyers said he could be held indefinitely [JURIST report]. In October 2008, a US military judge denied [ruling, PDF; JURIST report] a request [motion, PDF] by prosecutors that he reconsider a decision that reduced Hamdan's sentence [JURIST report] from five-and-a-half years to six months because of credit for time already served. Hamdan was initially taken into custody in 2001; in 2006 he successfully challenged President George W. Bush's military commission system when the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the commission system as initially construed violated US and international law. Congress subsequently passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [DOD materials], which established the current military commissions system.

[JURIST] The Paris Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a 2008 judgment against the online auction house eBay [corporate website] for its role in the sale of counterfeit goods but significantly reduced the amount of damages eBay has to pay. The appeals court cut the damages [AP report] to be paid to French luxury goods giant LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) [corporate website] from 38 million euros (USD $49 million) to 5.7 million euros (USD $7.3 million). The original judgment against eBay [JURIST report] found that the website failed to prevent the sale of counterfeit luxury goods that infringed on registered designs. It established [press release] that in France, eBay is liable for the sale of counterfeit goods or goods that are selected for special distribution. The court dismissed eBay's claim that it was just a mere host for selling services. Both sides are claiming the appeals court ruling a victory. LVMH is pleased that the judgment was not overturned, while eBay is claiming it as a win for it and the French consumers since the damages were so drastically reduced. US court rulings in online copyright infringement cases have been in stark contrast to those in Europe. In April, a federal appeals court ruled [JURIST report] that eBay is not required to actively monitor its website for the sale of counterfeit goods. In a separate case by LVHM against eBay in February, the Paris District Court [official website, in French] ordered [JURIST report] eBay to pay LVHM 200,000 euros (USD $275,000) in damages for paying search engines to direct customers to counterfeit LVMH products. In a separate case in September, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] issued an advisory opinion against LVMH [JURIST report] in its suit to collect damages from Google for Google's AdWords system, which allows companies and individuals to purchase advertising space when a user searches for a product or brand name.

[JURIST] Two individuals detained during the Group of 20 (G-20) [official website] summit in Toronto in July filed a class action suit [statement of claim, PDF] on Thursday on behalf of 1,150 individuals detained during the summit. The individuals, Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber, named three defendants in the suit, the Canadian Attorney General, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Regional Municaplity of Peel Police Services Board [official websites]. The plaintiffs claim that law enforcement committed numerous intentional torts against those detained between June 25 and June 30, including:abuse of power, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, infliction of mental suffering, invasion of privacy and abuse of public office. Alternatively, [Plaintiffs allege] that the defendants were negligent in the enactment of and execution of policies, procedures, directives and orders relating to the G20.The plaintiffs listed numerous reasons for bringing the suit, including protection of individuals in Canada from violation of their rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [materials] and deterrence of similar future actions by the police. The plaintiffs seek $100 million in damages, plus an additional $15 million in punitive damages, but some detainees do not believe that monetary damages [Toronto Sun report] will prevent the same actions from happening in the future. None of the defendants has released an official statement regarding the claims. Backlash from the G-20 meeting in Toronto began soon after the conclusion of summit. In early July, protesters in Toronto took to the streets and demanded an investigation [JURIST report] into police conduct during the meeting. One week before that July protest, the Ontario Ombudsman announced an investigation [JURIST report] into a local regulation [O regulation 233/10 text] that expanded the scope of police powers during the summit. That investigation is currently ongoing. Soon after the conclusion of the summit, in late June, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called for an inquiry [JURIST report] into police conduct and treatment of protesters.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced Thursday that a Hawaii grand jury has indicted six people on human trafficking charges [press release]. The defendants allegedly enticed approximately 400 Thai nationals to come to the US by falsely promising them job opportunities and then forcing them to work at famrs in Washington and Hawaii by threatening economic harm. According to the indictment, the six people, three of whom work for Global Horizons Manpower, charged the Thai nationals high recruitment fees [Honolulu Star-Advertiser report], which the Thai nationals paid by taking out loans secured by their house or land. The defendants told the Thai nationals that if they refused to work on the farms, they would be sent back to Thailand where they would be unable to repay the loans and risk having their houses and land foreclosed on. Prosecutors also claim that some workers were forced to pay $3,750 to keep their jobs. Two defendants were arrested [AP report] Thursday, two are expected to turn themselves in soon and two remain at large, presumably in Thailand. According to the DOJ, this will be the largest human trafficking case ever prosecuted in the US. The defendants face maximum prison sentences ranging from five to 70 years. In June, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) [official website] reported that human trafficking is a growing problem in Europe [JURIST report]. Earlier in June, the UNODC issued a report on the globalization of organized crime, which addressed, among other things, the global economic impact of human trafficking [JURIST report]. Also in June, the US State Department [official website] issued its annual report on human trafficking conditions [JURIST report] across the globe, which found the US "has a serious problem with human trafficking, both for labor and commercial sexual exploitation."

[JURIST] A judge for California's 3rd District Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [case summary; San Francisco Chronicle report] Wednesday that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown [official profiles] is required to appeal last month's federal district court decision [JURIST report] finding California's ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] unconstitutional. Supporters of Proposition 8 [text, JURIST news archive], which banned same-sex marriage in California, had hoped the state would appeal the decision since it is not clear that the supporters have standing [LAT op-ed] to the challenge the decision. Writing for the Pacific Justice Institute [advocacy website], which filed the suit attempting to force a state appeal, attorney Kevin Snider stated [blog post]:The duty to defend peacefully enacted laws is at its zenith when the voters have amended their own constitution. Should these elected members of the executive branch refuse to defend a constitutional amendment enacted in this manner, the Governor and the Attorney General will have seized an extraconstitutional power by creating what is tantamount to a constructive veto. Snider said the Pacific Justice Institute will appeal Wednesday's ruling. Schwarzenegger and Brown have both indicated that they will not cause the state to appeal the decision overturning Proposition 8 unless ordered to do so by a judge. Last month, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] issued a stay [JURIST report] of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision overturning Proposition 8 pending appeal. Earlier last month, Walker held that the same-sex marriage ban violated the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the US Constitution, but immediately stayed the ruling. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request, which led to Walker's refusal to issue a stay pending appeal. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, and their refusal to oppose the stay request left defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

[JURIST] Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang said Friday that last month's trial of four men sentenced to death for a 2009 attack on the presidential palace was fair. Obiang stated that the country's laws were respected, and procedures guaranteeing a legal, open and fair trial [AFP report], including the guarantee of defense counsel, were followed. Jose Abeso Nsue, Manuel Ndong Anseme, Alipio Ndong Asumu and Jacinto Micha Obiang, all government employees, were executed immediately after being convicted by a military court in Malabo on August 21. Both former colonial power Spain, and the US, condemned the executions. Last week, the government of Equatorial Guinea defended [JURIST report] the execution of the four men. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] had condemned the executions [press release], claiming that the four men were detained in Black Beach prison in Malabo where they were tortured into giving false confessions. Denouncing the government's judicial procedures, AI reported that these men were convicted after an unfair trial, sentenced to death and executed without having an opportunity to appeal their sentence. AI urged Equatorial Guinea to put an end to the abductions, torture and executions it carries out in the name of justice. The government stands by the conviction [JURIST report] of the four former government officials, stating that they received a fair and open trial before a military tribunal and were provided with counsel.

[JURIST] Judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] warned Friday that the genocide trial of Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] may take another four years—two years longer than expected. As the UN Security Council [official website] is urging the ICTY to close its doors, Friday's hearing [AP report] was called to discuss methods to streamline what has become the tribunal's lengthiest and most complex case. To speed things up, the prosecution urged the judges to allow prosecutors to enter more evidence directly to judges in writing, while the defense called for charges relating to the ethnic cleansing of some 20 Bosnian municipalities that occurred early in the war to be dropped. No immediate decisions were made on how to increase the efficiency of the case. In March, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that the ICTY will continue to operate [JURIST report] beyond its originally planned end date in part to apprehend the two indictees still at large—former Bosnian Serb Commander Ratko Mladic [case materials; JURIST news archive] and former Croatian Serb leader Goran Hadzic [case materials]—who both face a significant number of charges. In May, the ICTY amended the indictment of Mladic in order to help speed up the court proceedings once he is captured. In July, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution [press release] extending the terms of office for the judges of the ICTY. Resolution 1931 [text] was welcomed by the ICTY, which has been struggling with staff retention, causing large setbacks in the tribunal's trial schedule. The latest completion strategy [JURIST report] report estimates that all first instance trials will be completed by mid-2012 with the exception of Karadzic. Most appellate work is scheduled to be completed by early 2014.

[JURIST] The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA), a joint venture undertaken by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) [official websites], Austria and others, opened its doors [press release] on Thursday. Based in Laxenburg, Austria, the school is designed to educate public and private entities on the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) [materials] and train them in its applications. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] remarked [text]:Across the world, intolerance of corruption is growing. The establishment of this Academy responds not only to this increasing sense of outrage and injustice, but also to an urgent need to train the experts we need to conquer this global menace. The Academy will build a culture of integrity. It will nurture a new generation of leaders in the public and private sectors - a global network of talented, like-minded professionals. To date, anti-corruption training has lacked specialization. It will lead to more effective implementation of the Convention's measures on prevention, law enforcement, asset recovery and international cooperation.The academy will cater to a wide range of professions involved in combating corruption, including law enforcement personnel, lawyers and judges It is set to become fully operational next year, though several courses are already in progress. A 2007 report [text, PDF] authored by the UNODC and the World Bank [official website] placed corruption-related losses to developing nations between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion annually. The UNCAC became effective in 2005 after being adopted by the UN General Assembly [official website] two years earlier. The concept was originally recognized in the Resolution 55/61 Annex [text, PDF] as a means by which to counter corruption separate from organized crime.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called Wednesday on Bahraini authorities to make a prompt investigation into torture allegations [press release] made by four Shia activists who have been detained for more than two weeks. On August 27, after 15 days of solitary confinement, Abd al-Jalil al-Singace, one of the detained men, was brought for formal questioning and arraignment by Attorney General Ali Fadhul al-Buainain. Al-Singace told al-Buainain he had been handcuffed and blindfolded the entire time, beaten on his fingers with a hard instrument, had his ears and nipples pulled and twisted with tongs and been subjected to general harsh treatment. The following day, the three remaining detainees intimated similar treatment. Deputy Middle East director at HRW said:Bahraini authorities should immediately investigate these allegations of torture and guarantee the physical and psychological well-being of the four men. The attorney general has a legal obligation to throw out any coerced confessions and any evidence obtained by ill-treatment, including information that led to the men's indictments.Prosecutors have charged the four men with several national security crimes and ordered another 60 days of detention. In early 2010, HRW reported that the government of Bahrain had reverted to using torture [report text] to gain confessions from detainees, after a decade of reform banning such practices. HRW conducted interviews with 20 former detainees who claimed that they had suffered torture [JURIST report] and ill-treatment as early as 2007. The reversion appears to have coincided with the rising political tension between Shia Muslims and the Sunni-run government. The report also claimed that prosecutors have failed to respond appropriately by not launching formal investigations and administering medical examinations. The detainees' allegations were strengthened when a Bahraini court acquitted all defendants on all charges on the basis of medical reports that suggested the defendants had been physically coerced into confessing.

[JURIST] Current and former international prosecutors on Tuesday signed the fourth Chautauqua Declaration [text, PDF] praising recent advances in international law and urging countries to continue supporting the international courts in order to maintain the spirit of the Nuremburg Principles [text]. The prosecutors, who have worked with the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official websites], as well as the International Military Tribunals, called for continued support and funding of the tribunals and courts as they continue working to maintain the rule of law. They urged countries to fulfill their obligations under international law by investigating and prosecuting, or transferring to the appropriate international court, suspects who violate international criminal law, including sitting heads of state. Countries were also encouraged to refrain from the use of military force and to settle disputes in accordance with the UN Charter [materials]. The prosecutors noted the fifteenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive] and the continuing need for accountability. They also recognized the first conviction of an ex-Khmer Rouge leader [JURIST report], which was announced by the ECCC in July. Additionally, the prosecutors applauded the ICC's adoption of an amendment [press release; JURIST report] to the Rome Statute [text, PDF] in June, which included a definition for the crime of aggression and created jurisdictional conditions for prosecution. Under the ICC's new amendment, the UN Security Council [official website] will serve as the primary body in determining whether a crime of aggression has occurred. If the Security Council fails to make a determination, the ICC prosecutor is authorized to commence an investigation on his own initiative or upon a request from an ICC state party. The Security Council can halt an investigation of a crime of aggression at any time through a resolution, but this resolution must be reinstated every 12 months. Non-state parties do not fall under ICC jurisdiction when the prosecutor initiates the investigation, and state parties can exempt themselves from jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by submitting a declaration of non-acceptance to the court. These exemptions, however, do not apply when the Security Council has determined that a crime of aggression has occurred. ICC nations were initially unable to reach a consensus [JURIST report] on the adoption of the crime of aggression, but compromise was reached as the UN Review Conference of the Rome Statute [materials] came to a close in Kampala, Uganda.

[JURIST] The UN announced Thursday that it will delay the release of a report [UN News Centre report] that accuses Rwandan forces of committing acts of genocide in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] during the years following the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. According to a statement by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website], the report will be released on October 1 to allow time for commentary opposing the alleged findings. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] said that she is willing to include such comments in the published report. The Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) [official website] has condemned the report, a draft of which was originally leaked [Le Monde report, in French] last month, and has threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from UN operations [AP report] if the report is made public. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] on Thursday urged Rwanda to continue its peacekeeping efforts [AFP report] in Sudan in spite of its negative views of the report. The forthcoming report claims that troops from Rwanda [JURIST news archive] and allied rebels committed crimes in the DRC that could be classified as genocide if proven by the appropriate court. Documenting the extreme violence in the DRC from 1993-2003, the report alleges that tens of thousands of Hutus were killed by Rwandan troops [JURIST report] during the Congo civil war [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which more than 800,000 primarily Tutsi people were killed in a span of 100 days, Hutu militias and civilians fled to neighboring Congo, then known as Zaire. According to the New York Times, the report documents systematic killings [NYT report] by the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan army with the assistance of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL) rebel movement, which may legally amount to genocide. While Rwanda and the DRC have continually asserted that Hutu militias were attacked following the 1994 genocide, the report alleges that civilian Congolese Hutus were also the target of violence and killings. Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karagurama [official website] has rejected the report [BBC report], saying that it had no basis.

[JURIST] A criminal court in Thailand on Thursday convicted two members of the pro-government People's Alliance for Democracy Network [party website, in Thai; BBC backgrounder], known as "yellow shirts," of defaming former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Yellow shirt movement founder and Thai media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and his former television co-host Sarocha Pornudomsak were convicted [AFP report] of defaming Thaksin during their television show by accusing him of insulting the monarchy. The two were sentenced [Thai News Agency report] to six months in prison and ordered to pay fines of 20,000 baht (USD $640). The court suspended the sentence for two years, during which time both Sondi and Sarocha will be on probation. Thaksin filed the suit [JURIST report] against Sondhi and several others for their claims that he tried to undermine the monarchy. Thaksin, who is currently living in exile, has faced a variety of legal issues since the 2006 coup [JURIST report] that removed him from power. Last month, the Supreme Court of Thailand [GlobaLex backgrounder] denied his appeal [JURIST report] contesting the seizure of his assets. Thaksin filed the appeal in March after the Constitutional Court ordered that 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) of his fortune be seized [JURIST reports] in February. In July, the criminal division of Supreme Court issued a new arrest warrant [JURIST report] against him. Also in July, Thai police recommended terrorism charges [DPA report] against Thaksin and 24 others for their alleged involvement in the recent political violence [JURIST news archive] in Bangkok. Thaksin is considered the figurehead of the pro-democracy protesters known as the "red shirts," who protested against Thailand's current government and called for elections. The protests ended in May after protesters surrendered to police [JURIST report].

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] on Wednesday denied [order, PDF] the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services [corporate website] and several other drilling companies challenging the government's latest moratorium on offshore drilling. The moratorium directive was issued on July 12 [JURIST report] by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official website] after the district court and US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] granted an injunction against the government's initial directive issued on May 28. The drilling companies maintain that the latest moratorium is substantially the same as the previous one and that it would cause the same financial injury to the industry as the first moratorium. The government argued that the latest lawsuit was moot because the secretary had voluntarily withdrawn the initial directive and the latest moratorium was based on additional information. The initial moratorium banned drilling below 500 feet for six months until November 30, 2010, while the latest moratorium applies to all rigs that use blowout preventers on floating facilities until the same date. Judge Martin Feldman found that there were "no substantial changes" between the initial directive and the July 12 directive, the latest directive was "litigation posturing," the new moratorium did nothing to amend or prevent the wrongs found in the first moratorium, and that the wrongful behavior alleged in the first directive could be reasonably expected to occur as a result of the July 12 moratorium. Feldman refused to reinstate the moratorium [JURIST report] last month at the request of advocacy groups such as the Defenders of Wildlife [advocacy website], which also argued that the judge should be disqualified from the case because he owned stock in several oil and drilling companies. Feldman refused to recuse himself [JURIST report]. Earlier in July, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the original six-month drilling moratorium [JURIST report], arguing that the ban should be upheld because the government would likely win its appeal of the lower court's ruling. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] originally asked the court of appeals 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 spill with catastrophic results. Lawyers for the DOJ also claimed that that the district judge abused his discretion in issuing the injunction. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a result of an oil well blowout that caused an explosion 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. More than 120 million gallons of oil leaked from the rig's broken pipe causing the spill to surpass the Exxon Valdez [JURIST news archive] as the worst oil spill in US history.