Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/print/21128
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:25:32+00:00

Document:
United States of America, Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
Home > United States of America, Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
Case prepared by Mr. George Dvaladze, LL.M., student at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, under the supervision of Professor Marco Sassòli and Ms. Yvette Issar, research assistant, both at the University of Geneva.
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al.
N.B. As per the disclaimer , neither the ICRC nor the authors can be identified with the opinions expressed in the Cases and Documents. Some cases even come to solutions that clearly violate IHL. They are nevertheless worthy of discussion, if only to raise a challenge to display more humanity in armed conflicts. Similarly, in some of the texts used in the case studies, the facts may not always be proven; nevertheless, they have been selected because they highlight interesting IHL issues and are thus published for didactic purposes.
 The Defense contends ICRC reports, made over the course of a decade inspecting the detention facilities at the U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will provide historical perspective to their mitigation efforts, should a sentencing case become necessary, as each of the Accused is facing capital charges. The Prosecution initially requested the Commission deny the Defense motions but, in a change of its position, acquiesced in the need to provide discovery to the Defense subject to determinations of relevancy and materiality. This would have ended the controversy save for the intervention of the ICRC and the apparent refusal of other government agencies to provide the Prosecution with the ICRC reports.
 [Rule for Military Commissions] [(]R.M.C.[)] 703, provides the Defense ‘reasonable opportunity to obtain […] other evidence’ and sets forth a comparability standard as to the ‘opportunity available to a criminal defendant in a court of the United States under Article III of the Constitution.’ […] R.M.C. 703 (f) entitles ‘each party [...] to the production of evidence which is relevant, necessary and noncumulative’ specifically subject to limitations pertaining to classified evidence and guided by the general discovery parameters set out in R.M.C. 701. Unwritten, but germane to the ICRC challenge, are limitations on admissibility that run contrary to the truth-seeking function of our system of criminal justice by excluding unreliable or prejudicial evidence. Among these limitations are those considered as evidentiary privileges.
 In its motion, the ICRC lays claim to an absolute privilege against involvement in a judicial proceeding citing consistent recognition by ‘international tribunals and by the international community.’ The ICRC is a non-governmental organization granted special recognition in the United States under 22 U.S.C. § 288f-3: Immunities for International Committee of the Red Cross and Executive Order 12643 - International Committee of the Red Cross, June 23, 1988, neither of which specifically provides for a privilege from disclosure of ICRC work product.
 Much of the common law cited in the ICRC's brief stems from intergovernmental relationships, or relationships developed on commercial interests, and do not directly go to the relationship between a nation-state and a non-governmental organization. The Commission is unaware of any court of a nation-state rendering a decision as to a specific evidentiary privilege for the ICRC. Additionally, no court of a nation-state has precluded discovery of correspondence between the ICRC and a nation-state, which is a party to a lawsuit.
 The ICRC cited Prosecutor v. Simic, [See Case No. 214, ICTY/ICC, Confidentiality and Testimony of ICRC Personnel, Document A] (Simic), which provided an evidentiary privilege for ICRC work. Judge David Hunt issued separate opinions in both Simic and its companion case - ‘the Motion by Todorovic for Order requesting Assistance of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Prosecutor v. Simic, Trial Chamber, IT-95-9/1, Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Motion by Todorovic for Order Requesting Assistance of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICTY June 7, 2000) (Todorovic).
 The ICRC also referenced Prosecutor v. Brdjanin (Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-99-36, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, (ICTY Dec. 11, 2002)) (Brdjanin), a case discussing the privilege of a war correspondent and alluding to Simic as an example of a recognized common law privilege without further discussion or decision.
 Ntahobali was followed by Prosecutor v. Muvunyi (ICTR-2000-55A-T, Reasons for the Chamber's Decision on the Accused's Motion to Exclude Witness TQ, 15 July 2005) (Muvunyi), in which the same witness was requested by the prosecution, and the accused asserted the ICRC privilege prevented such testimony. While making note of the ICRC's ‘exceptional’ privilege stemming from Simic, the Tribunal found the same witness in question was, differing from the decision in Ntahobali, not an employee of the ICRC and the issue of privilege never attached to his testimony and was therefore not specifically addressed by the Tribunal. Muvunyi was followed by The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Nizeyimana (Case No. ICTR-00-55C-PT, Decision on Extremely Urgent and Confidential Motion Challenging the Admissibility of Witness TQ'S Testimony, 26 January 2011)(Nizeyimana), in which the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, while noting Simic, followed the decision in Muvunyi, finding the witness was not an ICRC employee and likewise did not make a specific finding as to the applicability of an ICRC evidentiary privilege.
 No cases from the International Criminal Court provide judicial interpretation upon the interplay of these separate parts of the Rule, but Rule 73 seems to permit a balancing of interests similar to Judge Hunt's analysis in Simic.
‘(1) The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed.
(2) This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties.
(3) The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered.
 The first three factors clearly weigh heavily on the side of finding a privilege for the requested reports. The fourth factor, the ‘injury’ an Accused, in the case now before the Commission, might suffer is significantly greater than the ones faced by Simic or any of the successor cases. In those cases, a period of imprisonment for each accused was at stake, while in the case now before the Commission, each of the Accused potentially faces capital punishment if convicted.
 Seeking to alleviate ICRC concerns about having their reports concerning the detainees and the detention facility provided to the public, Mr. Aziz Ali proposed incorporating the ICRC reports into the frame work envisioned for classified material by Amended Protective Order #1. For differing reasons, both the ICRC and the Prosecution opposed the suggested remedy. The ICRC argued their work product existed under an absolute privilege, and the Prosecution relied upon its argument requiring a determination of relevance and materiality, as contemplated in R.M.C 703(t), before any disclosure to an Accused could be made.
The Commission finds the ICRC reports, while being treated by DoD as though they were classified, are not classified documents. As such, they are not incorporated within the statutory protections afford classified materials by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) (18 U.S.C. § 16) or M.C.R.E. 505. Consequently, the mandates and protections contemplated by Amended Protective Order #1 do not apply to ICRC reports or correspondence between the ICRC and United States governmental organizations. The defense motion asks the Commission to artificially offer protection to the ICRC reports. This would have the effect of supplanting the intent of CIPA by providing the protections offered properly classified information to pseudo-classified or sensitive information. Assuming arguendo the Commission decides disclosure of the ICRC reports is necessary based on relevancy and materiality, any protections afforded them will be under the provisions of Protective Order #2, ‘To Protect Unclassified Discovery Material Where Disclosure is Detrimental to the Public Interest’.
 The decisions by international tribunals on the issue of the existence of an absolute privilege for ICRC records are inconsistent as to whether such a privilege exists. Combining this with a lack of any precedent established in a court of the United States, or of any other nation-state, the Commission finds there is a lack of meaningful or longstanding international common law to serve as precedent for the determination currently before it.
 The Defense motion […] to amend Protective Order# 1 is DENIED.
 The Government motion […] to permit the Government to fulfill legal obligations to review the ICRC materials is DENIED.
 The ICRC motion […] to deny the position advanced by the Prosecution in their response to review the materials in question and asserting an absolute privilege to any disclosure is DENIED.
 The Commission does not recognize an ICRC absolute privilege under the laws of the United States or the rules of discovery governing this proceeding. The ICRC motion […] for a protective order denying the defense request for discovery and protecting ICRC materials from ‘future disclosure’ is DENIED.
 The Defense motion to compel discovery […] of ICRC materials, acquiesced to by the Prosecution, is DEFERRED to accommodate an In Camera and Under Seal review of the material by the Commission using the standards set out in R.M.C. 703(f).
 The Prosecution, as representative of the United States, is ORDERED to have all correspondence between the United States and the ICRC, in the possession of the United States pertaining to the ICRC inspections of, and work at, the detention facilities at the US Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, delivered to the Chief Clerk of the Trial Judiciary, Office of Trial Judiciary, not later than 1200 hours […]. In the course of so doing, the Prosecution will not inspect, copy, or otherwise view the materials under consideration.
(1) The materials in question may be provided in electronic or hard copy.
(2) An index of the ICRC documents will be provided.
Does International Human Rights Law (IHRL) require states to grant independent bodies access to places where persons are deprived of their liberty for the purposes of inspecting the facilities? Even if these facilities are used to detain persons captured in armed conflicts?
Is confidentiality a principle like neutrality, impartiality or independence? Does it necessarily follow from those principles? Would an organization necessarily violate its neutrality or impartiality by allowing its staff to testify before international or domestic criminal tribunals?
What is a customary rule of international law? What value does the case law of international criminal tribunals have in international law?
Can the ICRC contribute towards the formation of customary rules? With respect to IHL? With respect to its immunity from providing evidence in judicial proceedings? Can its practice constitute the objective element of the custom? The opinio juris?
Do you think the interests of justice and the right of the defendant to have a ‘reasonable opportunity to obtain the evidence’ take precedence over this principle of non-disclosure? What could the direct or indirect consequences of the disclosure of the ICRC documents and communications with national authorities be?
(paras -) Do you think that the implementation of the decision of the Military Commission will amount to the disclosure of the ICRC documents and communications? Do you think the way the Military Commission ordered the disclosure of ICRC documents and communication was appropriate?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 288
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16