Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/10126644/E-CN-4-2006-120
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:36:05+00:00

Document:
held at the United States of America Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay since June 2004.
one joint report on this subject rather than five individual reports.
the terms of reference, the mandate holders decided on 18 November 2005 to cancel the visit.
Government’s reply of 31 January 2006.
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.
law extend to the persons detained at Guantánamo Bay.
and they must not be discriminatory.
article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.
punishment and safeguard the presumption of innocence.
of ICCPR, constitute a violation of the right to personal liberty.
combatants” does in fact constitute arbitrary deprivation of the right to personal liberty.
into the hands of the enemy” may be detained as a prisoner of war until the end of the hostilities.
international armed conflict is over.
duration of hostilities can therefore not be invoked to justify their detention.
limitations to this right should be viewed with utmost concern.
habeas corpus petition has been decided on the merits by a United States Federal Court.
shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures.
respect the guarantees for a fair trial.
commissions outside the control of judicial authorities.
advocate of any of the United States Armed Forces.
recognizes the duty to “provide a full and fair trial”, but its provisions do not guarantee that right.
about the conditions under which information is obtained from detainees at Guantánamo Bay.
detention is in the hands of interrogators and depends on the degree of “cooperation” with them.
detainees’ right to be tried without undue delay is being violated.
unspecified “national security” reasons, to conduct trials in secret.
ICCPR, is consequently also severely restricted.
under torture in legal proceedings.
was superseded by a Department of Justice memorandum dated 30 December 2004.
exempt the CIA from the legal prohibition of CIDT.
extreme temperatures, if prolonged, can conceivably cause severe suffering.
circumstances be subject to derogation.
therefore were not able to pray.
the right to freedom of religion or belief of detainees.
including shaving of beards, heads and eyebrows.
example, by interrogating detainees on the extent of their faith in Islamic teachings.
alleged violations of the right to health in Guantánamo Bay.
health professionals, including those arising from force-feeding.
these principles on any ground, including public emergency.
with such ethical standards is essential to realizing the right to health.
the hunger striker consistent with ethical principles.
address only briefly given the severe space constraints.
some domestic courts, and many others.
right to health, as well as international ethics for health professionals.
or any other international human rights treaty to which it is a party.
violation of article 9 of ICCPR.
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
amounting to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
the religious feelings of detainees.
deterioration of the mental health of many detainees.
care, including mental health care, the detainees are receiving.
as well as the ethical duties of any health professionals who may be involved.
trying suspected terrorists before a competent international tribunal.
the Department of Defense should immediately be revoked.
grounds for believing they would be in danger of being tortured.
detainee or by his legal representative or family.
the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.
Guantánamo Bay facilities, including private interviews with detainees.
residing in the three respective countries. No response has been received so far.
Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005 pertaining to detainees at Guantánamo Bay, p. 52.
See Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2003/68, 2004/87 and 2005/80.
and article 16 of the Convention against Torture, as noted in paragraph 45.
* Annexes I and II are being circulated in the language of submission only.
Law and Policy, vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall 1987), pp. 419-431.
Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (9 July 2004).
and subject to its jurisdiction”.
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, at p. 240 (8 July 1996), para. 25.
deprivation of liberty of persons detained at Guantánamo Bay (E/CN.4/2003/8, paras. 61 to 64).
report to the Commission in 2005 (E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 64).
series of Military Commissions Orders.
Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005, Pertaining to Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, p. 3.
activities is not detained in connection with any armed conflict, humanitarian law does not apply.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Civilian Persons, art. 133 (1).
Third Geneva Convention, art. 119 (5), and Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 133.
Third Geneva Convention, art. 17 (3), and Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 31.
See, Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 446, 124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004).
Guantánamo Detainees Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, at 468-478.
Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005, Pertaining to Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, p. 47.
services of the Personal Representative”.
in an orderly fashion” (Qassim v. Bush, Opinion Memorandum of 22 December 2005, 2005 U.S.
to offer, i.e. it could not order their release (ibid., para. 16).
Ibid., Section 1005 (2) (A), (B), and (C).
General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 13 (1984), para. 4, and Kurbanov v.
of 6 November 2003, para. 7.6.
General comment No. 13, supra note 35, para. 4.
Principles No. 10, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (see supra note 34).
Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.
General comment No. 13, supra note 13, para. 10.
and 8 (2) (a) (ii) of the 1998 Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court.
at 31 December 2004. Vol. 1, 183 and vol. 1, 286.
Committee: United States of America. 03/10/95. CCPR/C/79/Add.50; A/50/40, paras. 266-304.
No. 1 (G) (April 2005).
“Counter-resistance Techniques”, and approved by Secretary Rumsfeld on 2 December 2002.
of 15 January 2003 on “Counter-Resistance Techniques”.
Airat Vakhitov on 18 November 2005 in London.
Resolution 1433 of 26 April 2005, para. 7 ii.
(Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) of 8 December 2005.
Session 2005-06- UKHL 71, para. 126.
“The ICRC feels that interrogators have too much control over the basic needs of detainees.
JTG GTMO-SJA to Record (9 October 2003).
Initial observations from ICRC concerning treatment of detainees (21 January 2002).
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on behalf of the detainees (24 January 2002).
See also Chapter IV of this report.
See also Chapter V (1) of this report.
by stating that the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) has not changed since their last visit.
See e.g. interview with Moazzam Begg of 18 November 2005.
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para 6; and Polay Campos v.
Kehl/Strasbourg/Arlington 2005, at pp. 172 et seq. and 244 et seq.
Michael Ratner and Ellen Ray: “Guantánamo. What the World Should Know.” June 2004.
Rights in Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (Appl. No. 54825/00), para. 98.
Tapes Show Teams Punching, Stripping Prisoners”, Associated Press, 1 February 2005.
Attorney Tina M. Foster of 17 November 2005.
the prohibition on non-refoulement” resolution 1433 of 26 April 2005, para. 7 vii.
indicated that allegations were investigated by officials of the Department of Defense.
response to acts of inhuman or degrading treatment even if the practice was unauthorized.
and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, art. 1 (3) (25 November 1981).
General comment No. 22, supra note 83, para. 8.
paragraph 1, of Additional Protocol I and articles 4 and 5 of Additional Protocol II.
Facility (1 April 2005, amended 9 June 2005) (The Schmidt Report).
in March 2003 was considered authorized to show the futility of the situation.
of 16 April 2005 on “Counter Resistance Techniques in the War on Terror”. See supra, para. 50.
resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.
Guantánamo Bay today. Defence Counsel Questionnaires.
ratified the Vienna Convention, it is generally recognized as a restatement of previous law.
Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/24, para. 20 (c).
at 35, E/5988 (1977) paras. 9-22.
International in London, UK (19-21 November 2005).
Physicians for Human Rights, supra note 103, pp. 52-53.
experiment. Jane Meyer, “The Experiment”, The New Yorker (11 and 18 July 2005).
representing approximately 80 national medical associations.
(Protocol II), 8 June 1977, article 10.
former detainee Rustam Akhmiarov, London (18 November 2005).
of detainee being exposed to extreme cold); G. Bloche and J. Marks, supra note 116.
See Neil A. Lewis, supra note 103 (quoting ICRC report).
United States (3 June 2005).
The Kiley Report, supra note 115, 1-8.
Association 1544, 1545 (28 September 2005).
United Nations Principles, Principle 5 (emphasis added).
The New York Times (9 February 2006).
Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005 Pertaining to Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, at 19.
CESCR, general comment No. 14, supra note 99, paras. 8, 34.
AMA position on forced feeding of detainees is set forth in the Declaration of Tokyo.
will not be of a substantive nature’.
rights and of medical ethics.
not the basis on which international human rights mechanisms should act.

References: art. 133
 art. 119
 art. 133
 art. 17
 art. 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 UKHL 
 v.

 v. 
 art. 1