SAN DIEGO 'In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other groups, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to release an HIV-positive torture victim from Mexico who was detained by immigration officials for nearly two years despite a judge having granted her relief.

Oscar 'Diana' Santander, who suffered torture in her home country at the hands of police and other government officials, was granted asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture last May by an immigration judge. But the government continued to incarcerate her at the San Diego Correctional Facility in Otay Mesa, while it appealed a portion of the ruling. Although the grant of asylum was reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the immigration judge recently reaffirmed the grant of relief under the Convention Against Torture. The government decided not to appeal that ruling and released Ms. Santander late last week.

Ms. Santander was represented by the ACLU's Southern California and San Diego affiliate offices, together with Casa Cornelia Law Center and the private law firm Greenberg Glusker.

'While we are gratified that the U.S. government finally agreed to end Diana's detention, it is shameful that the government detained an HIV-positive torture victim for nearly two years and wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars in the process. Diana will never get those years of her life back,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of the ACLU of Southern California's immigrants' rights and national security project. 'The government had no reason to continue to imprison a woman who had won relief under the Convention Against Torture. This case presents another stark example of the government's misguided addiction to incarceration.'

Santander first gained notoriety after she spoke out in the aftermath of the death of Victoria Arellano, another transgender immigration detainee who died of AIDS after the government failed to provide her with adequate medical care. Although the government never disputed that Santander was an HIV positive torture victim, it nevertheless fought Santander's release while it appealed the decisions granting her relief under refugee protection laws. As a result, the government incarcerated her for an additional nine months after she first won her case.

'The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice stated that people who have prevailed in their asylum applications cannot be detained for a prolonged period. That court has also twice held that foreign nationals detained for a prolonged period must be afforded a hearing where the government bears the burden to show that their detention remains justified,' said Bardis Vakili of the Casa Cornelia Law Center. 'It is unfortunate that the government chose to ignore the governing federal law for so long in this case.'

Santander was held an additional six months after her lawyers filed the lawsuit on her behalf.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a challenge to a congressional law allowing an eight-foot-tall Latin cross to remain in the Mojave National Preserve by transferring ownership of an acre of land within the preserve to the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is now defunct. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that this transfer of federal land did not eliminate the government's endorsement of religion, and thus did not solve the Establishment Clause violation that the lower courts had already found. The government appealed that decision.

The following should be attributed to Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California:

'We are disappointed that the Supreme Court agreed to review this case, but not surprised given that it challenges a congressional statute. The appeals court rightly found that the statute did not solve the Establishment Clause problem created by a large cross in the midst of a National Preserve; in fact, it compounded the problem by continuing to favor this one religious symbol that had already been granted unique access to federal property. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm the appeals court's decision and send a clear message that the federal government must not endorse one religion over another.'

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California called today for an independent investigation into the Pasadena Police Department's fatal shooting of Leroy Barnes Jr. during a Feb. 19 traffic stop.

The fatal shooting of the Pasadena resident -- and the shifting accounts provided by police following the incident -- raises troubling questions about whether the officers involved in the incident purposely provided false information.

Police initially reported that Barnes exited the vehicle and fired at officers, but those accounts were later conflicted by Pasadena Police Chief Bernard Melekian, who stated Barnes never left the vehicle and was actually in the back seat of the car when he was shot by at least one officer. Melekian also stated that Barnes did not shoot at officers, though he was armed and assaulted an officer.

The ACLU/SC is also concerned about disturbing reports from witnesses who allege that officers continued to shoot Barnes after he fell still on the street. News accounts of the incident further state that police fired their weapons into the air as crowds gathered around the scene of the shooting.

'The Pasadena Police Department has issued conflicting and, at best, incomplete information about the circumstances of this tragic shooting. This will raise doubts and questions in the minds of many people, and it should,' said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC executive director. 'Because of that, the department should stand aside and allow an independent investigation to take place that can focus on getting out the truth about this incident.'

Added Peter Bibring, ACLU/SC staff attorney: 'It's troubling that the Pasadena Police Department is changing its story; that raises questions as to why they gave out erroneous information to begin with, and whether officers initially lied about what happened. The residents of Pasadena must be given a clear account of what led to the shooting, and why the police initially made incorrect reports that the victim fired on them.'