Combatant Status Review Tribunal The Combatant Status Review Tribunals ( CSRT ) were a set of tribunals for confirming whether detainee s held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had been correctly designated as " enemy combatant s " . The CSRTs were established July 7 , 2004 by order of U . S . Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz after U . S . Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v . Rumsfeld and Rasul v . Bush and were coordinated through the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants . These non - public hearings were conducted as " a formal review of all the information related to a detainee to determine whether each person meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant . " The first CSRT hearings began in July 2004 . Redacted transcripts of hearings for " high value detainees " were posted to the Department of Defense ( DoD ) website . As of October 30 , 2007 , fourteen CSRT transcripts were available on the DoD website . Existing U . S . and the Combat Status Review Tribunals . The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence that would apply in court , and the government ’ s evidence is presumed to be “ genuine and accurate . ” The government is required to present all of its relevant evidence , including evidence that tends to negate the detainee ’ s designation , to the tribunal . Unclassified summaries of relevant evidence may be provided to the detainee . The detainee ’ s personal representative may view classified information and comment on it to the tribunal to aid in its determination but does not act as an advocate for the detainee . If the tribunal determines that the preponderance of the evidence is insufficient to support a continued designation as “ enemy combatant ” and its recommendation is approved through the chain of command established for that purpose , the detainee will be informed of that decision upon finalization of transportation arrangements ( or earlier , if the task force commander deems it appropriate ) . The rules do not give a timetable for informing detainees in the event that the tribunal has decided to retain their enemy combatant designations . Secretary of the Navy Gordon R . England stated : Thus , the tribunals themselves are modeled after the procedures — AR 190 - 8 Tribunals — the military uses to make determinations in compliance with the Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention ( that states " Should any doubt arise as to whether persons , having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy , belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 , such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal . " ) This is most likely because , in Hamdi v . Rumsfeld , a plurality of the Supreme Court suggested the Department of Defense empanel tribunals similar to the AR 190 to make factual status determinations . The mandate of the CSRTs and the AR 190 - 8 Tribunals differed in that AR 190 - 8 Tribunals were authorized to determine that captives were civilians , who should be released , and " lawful combatant s " , who the Geneva Conventions protect from prosecution . Conduct of Combatant Status Review Tribunals . The exact location of the current CSRT hearings is unknown , but prior CSRT hearings were held in trailers in Guantanamo Bay , Cuba . Images of the trailers , with the white , plastic chairs the detainees sat in shackled to the floor and the large , black leather chair behind a microphone where the President sat can be found on the DoD website . A dramatization of the conduct of CSRTs , based on CSRT transcripts , is presented in the film " The Response " . Presiding officers . The identity of the presiding officers at CSRTs hearings is classified . In the CSRT transcripts released on the DoD website , that information has been removed from the transcripts . The ranks of those present , however , and their service branch remain in the documents . For example , at Guleed Hassan Ahmed ' s CSRT in April 2007 , the CSRT President was a Lieutenant Colonel from the U . S . Air Force . Other services present include the U . S . Marine Corps and the U . S . Army ; the only other rank mentioned in the transcript was Gunnery Sergeant . In other CSRTs , the ranks , services , and persons present varied . At certain CSRTs , a non - military language analyst was present . Role of the CSRT Recorder . The CSRT Recorder had several tasks . First , he or she was charged with keeping a record of the CSRT process by recording the CSRT process . Second , the Recorder swore in all the CSRT participants by administering an oath . Third , the Recorder was also charged with presenting classified and unclassified material during the CSRTs . Fourth , the Recorder was often asked to explain or clarrify facts or information during the CSRT . In Guleed Hassan Ahmed ' s CSRT transcript one finds the following exchange : PRESIDENT : [ The ] Tribunal has completed its review of the unclassified evidence provided . We do have one question for the Recorder . Is Somalia , Ethiopia , and / or Kenya a coalition partner ? < br > RECORDER : Somalia is not ; Ethiopia is ; and Kenya is , a coalition partner of the United States . Role of the Detainee at CSRTs . Detainees had the option of attending their CSRTs , but attendance was not mandated . Some detainees protested the CSRTs by not attending , opting instead to send personal , written statements to be read before the CSRT in their absence . The reading of a detainee ' s written statement was the task of The Personal Representative , and this occurred , in one case , with Guleed Hassan Ahmed who did not attend his CSRT and instead sent a statement . When detainees did attend , if required , a translator was typically present to assist the detainee and tribunal members . They are given a copy of the unclassified summary of information , and aided by a " Personal Representative " . Presence of Observers at CSRTs . The question of the presence of outside , neutral observers at the CSRTs is debated . Murat Kurnaz , an example . Murat Kurnaz is a young Turkish citizen who was born in , and had grown up , in Germany . When captured , he was close to being granted German citizenship , which children of guest workers are required to apply for in a separate process when they come of age . While on a trip to Pakistan in the fall of 2001 , he was taken off a tourist bus and detained , then transferred to United States custody . When his case was reviewed by a CSRT in the fall of 2004 , the tribunal ' s determined there was enough evidence that Kurnaz had ties to terrorism to classify and hold him as an enemy combatant . Through a bureaucratic slip - up , Kurnaz ' s file was declassified . During the brief window when it was declassified in March 2005 , the " Washington Post " reviewed all the evidence against him and published a summary . Joyce Hens Green , a US District Court judge for the District of Columbia , was assigned in 2004 to coordinate the nearly 60 " habeas corpus " cases filed following the US Supreme Court ' s decision in " Rasul v . Bush " ( 2004 ) that detainees had the right to due process and to " habeas corpus " challenges of their detention . Kurnaz ' case was one which she reviewed , and she had the clearance to review both the classified and declassified materials . Green found that Kurnaz ' file contained some 100 pages of documents and reports explaining that German and American investigators could find no evidence whatsoever that Kurnaz had any ties to terrorism . Shortly before his tribunal an unsigned memo had been added to his file concluding he was an al Qaeda member . Green ' s comment on the memo was that it : She said Kurnaz ' case was an " extreme example of illegal detention " at Guantanamo . Eugene R . Fidell , a Washington - based expert in military law , said : Critics . It has been suggested these CSR Tribunals are inherently flawed . The principal arguments of why they are inadequate to warrant acceptance as " competent tribunal , " are : Some specific cases that call attention to what critics assert is a flawed nature of the CSRT procedure : Mustafa Ait Idir , Moazzam Begg , Murat Kurnaz , Feroz Abbasi , and Martin Mubanga . A comment on the matter by legal experts states : James Crisfield , the legal advisor to the Tribunals , offered his legal opinion , that CSRT " " do not have the discretion to determine that a detainee should be classified as a prisoner of war - - only whether the detainee satisfies the definition of " enemy combatant " " " Determining whether a captive should be classified as a prisoner of war is the purpose of a " competent tribunal . " On June 29 , 2006 , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Geneva Conventions should be applied , but only Article 3 , which does not require a competent tribunal . Results . The CSRTs are presently on - going , but specific hearings have resulted in a variety of outcomes . Many detainees are still being detained , others have been released to return to their homeland , and still others have been classified and cleared for release but remain at Guantanamo Bay and in U . S . custody because their home countries cannot assure their safety . According the to prior Secretary of the Navy Gordon England , " The basis of detaining captured enemy combatants is not to punish but , rather , to prevent them from continuing to fight against the United States and its coalition partners in the ongoing global war on terrorism . Detention of captured enemy combatants is both allowed and accepted under international law of armed conflict . " 2007 Combatant Status Review Tribunals for 14 " high - value detainees " . In a surprise move President George W . Bush announced the transfer of 14 " high - value detainees " from clandestine CIA custody to military custody in Guantanamo in the fall of 2006 . Prior to the transfer legal critics had repeatedly stated that the men in covert CIA custody could never be tried because they had been subjected to abusive interrogation techniques , which would invalidate any evidence that flowed from their interrogations . Nevertheless , Bush said the transfer would allow the men , most of whom were considered to be members of the inner circle of al Qaeda ' s senior leadership , to be tried at Guantanamo Bay using the CSRT procedures . U . S . Judicial appeals . The Bush Presidency asserted that the captives had no right to appeal and that they were outside the US judicial systems . Captives who had " next friend s " willing to initiate the " habeas corpus " process filed appeals before US District Courts . " Rasul v . Bush " ( 2004 ) was the first appeal to make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States . The court ruled that detainees had the right to challenge the basis of their detention , and that the government needed to distinguish between POWs , civilians , and enemy combatants . To respond to the Court ' s ruling , the Bush administration established the Combatant Status Review Tribunals to review whether detainees were properly classified as enemy combatants and began reviews in 2004 . It was not until they had determined if a detainee was an enemy combatant that they could proceed to trials by military commissions . In " Hamdan v . Rumsfeld " ( 2006 ) , the Court ruled that the system of military commissions as established by DOD was illegal and needed to be replaced by a system authorized by Congress . Through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 , in accordance with Bush administration goals , the United States Congress moved to limit , and then curtail the detainees ' ability to file habeas corpus appeals . The Supreme Court ruled on the outstanding habeas corpus appeals in " Al Odah v . United States " and " Boumediene v . Bush " ( 2008 ) , discussed below . The Military Commission Act provides a process by which captives can appeal the decisions of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and whether it properly followed OARDEC ' s rules in reaching its determination . If and when captives are able to file these appeals , they would be heard before the U . S . Court of Appeals for the D . C . Circuit . Emma Schwartz , in the " US News and World Report " , on August 30 , 2007 , reported that her sources told her : " . . . Up to one fourth of the department ' s own civil appellate staff has recently opted out of handling the government ' s cases against detainee appeals . " Several amalgamated cases have been initiated in the DC Circuit Court . There is controversy over whether the Appeal Court will have access to all the evidence against the captives . As of May 2008 , none of the cases has proceeded to the point when the judges would consider the merits of the case . Supreme Court 2008 ruling . On June 12 , 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in the case " Boumediene v . Bush " , 5 - 4 , that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system . Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion : The Court also ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were " inadequate " . Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy in the majority . Chief Justice John Roberts , in the minority report , called the CSR Tribunals : Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Roberts in the dissent . Vincent Warren , the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights , the organization that initiated the case that the Supreme Court ruled on , said :