Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-q5mmw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-05T01:25:28.286Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

8 - Case study I: Guantánamo Bay detentions under international human rights and humanitarian law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2015

Helen Duffy
Universiteit Leiden
Get access


The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

(Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

To deny violent extremists one of their most potent recruitment tools, we will close the prison at Guantánamo Bay.

(US National Security Strategy 2010)

A defining feature of practice since 2001 has been the large-scale detention of persons ‘for reasons related to the conflict’ that the US purports to be waging against al Qaeda and associated groups. While people have been detained in many centres across the world, by the US or by proxy, a major repository for detainees, and symbol of the ‘war on terror’, has been the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Since early January 2002, an estimated total of nearly 800 people, including nationals of at least forty states, have at some point been transferred to and held in detention facilities at Guantánamo.

The location of the detention centre on Guantánamo Bay, which the United States authorities claimed was beyond US sovereign territory, was an acknowledged attempt to circumvent the application of human rights protections in the United States Constitution and access to US courts. The detainees were labelled ‘enemy combatants’, in support of the view that normal criminal and human rights law did not apply, though the epithet was simultaneously relied upon to justify the non-application of the protective aspects of international humanitarian law. They came to be held in what has correspondingly been described as a ‘legal black hole’ or ‘legal limbo’.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Platt, S. (ed.), in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service (1989), available at
Al Odah et al. v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (DC Cir. 2003)
Yoo, John Interview, PBS, July 19, 2005, available at:
Steyn, Lord Justice, ‘Guantánamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole’, 53 (2004) International and Comparative Law Quarterly1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R. (Abbasi and Another) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] EWCA Civ. 1598 (hereinafter, ‘Abbasi’), at para. 64
Dembart, L., ‘Old Laws Hard to Apply to Modern Terrorism: For Afghans in Cuba, Untested Legal Limbo’, International Herald Tribune January 25, 2002, available at: Google Scholar
Falconer, Lord, in Dyer, C., ‘Falconer Accuses US of Affront to Democracy’, Guardian, 13 September 2006, available at: Google Scholar
Pilkington, E., ‘Guantánamo: Still a Part of America’s Conscience, A Decade On’, Guardian, 11 January 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Shipman, T., ‘Blair Under Pressure to Condemn Guantánamo Camp’, Daily Mail, 16 February 2006, available at: Google Scholar
Powell, Colin, Meet the Press, June 10, 2007, available at: and Obama, May 23 National Defense University speech
Napolitano, Janet, the US Homeland Security Chief, ‘Guantánamo Became a Recruiting Tool for Terrorism: Napolitano’, AFP News November 6, 2009Google Scholar
Mullen, Admiral Mike, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ‘Guantánamo … has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us’, ‘Military Chief: Gitmo “Needs to Be Closed”’, ABC News, May 24, 2009, available at: Google Scholar
See Rasul v. Bush, 542 US 466 (2004) (hereinafter, ‘Rasul’)
Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (hereinafter, ‘Boumediene’)
Spillius, A., ‘Barack Obama “Proposes to Move Terrorists Suspects from Guantánamo Bay”’, Telegraph, 10 November 2008, available at: Google Scholar
Savage, C., ‘Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority’, The New York Times, June 25, 2010, available at: Google Scholar
Neuman, G. L., ‘Surveying Law and Borders: Anomalous Zones’, 48 (1996) Stanford Law Review1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opinion of Assistant Attorney-General Olsen, , March 29, 1982, in 6 (1982) Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice 236, 242
Murphy, M. E., The History of Guantánamo Bay 1494–1964, United States Naval Base District Publications and Print Office, Tenth Navel District, 5 January 1953, quoted by US Navy, available at:
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1326 (2nd Cir. 1992), 1342
Yoo, Interview, PBS, July 19, 2005
Abbasi case which states that ‘The united states Government believes that individuals detained at Guantánamo are enemy combatants’, July 2, 2002
‘Cheney: Gitmo Holds “Worst of the Worst”: Former Vice President Says Killing Suspects was Only Other Option’, NBC News, January 6, 2009, available at:
‘The Guantánamo Files: Guantánamo Leaks Lift Lid on World’s Most Controversial Prison’, Guardian, 25 April 2011, available at:
‘Transfer of Juvenile Detainees Completed’, US Dept. of Defense, News Release No. 057–04, January 29, 2004, available at
Seelye, K. Q., ‘A Nation Challenged: Captives; An Uneasy Routine at Cuba Prison Camp’, The New York Times, March 16, 2002, available at: Google Scholar
‘Guantánamo Files: How Interrogators Were Told to Spot al-Qaida and Taliban Members’, Guardian, 25 April 2011, available at:
Hope, C., Winnett, R. et al., ‘WikiLeaks: Guantánamo Bay Terrorist Secrets Revealed’, Telegraph, 25 April 2011Google Scholar
‘Why Can’t Cleared Prisoners Leave Guantánamo Bay?’, Reprieve, July 10, 2012, available at:
Meyer, M. and Studds, K., ‘Upholding Human Dignity and the Geneva Conventions: The Roles of the Media in Protecting Prisoners of War and Civilian Security Internees against Insults and Public Curiosity’, ICRC, 14 July 2006, p. 1, available at: Google Scholar
Left, S., ‘Guantánamo Bay: What Are the Conditions at Guantánamo?’, Guardian, 10 October 2002, available at: Google Scholar
Goldenberg, S., ‘Guantánamo Abuse Same as Abu Ghraib, say Britons’, Guardian, 14 May 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Goldenberg, S., ‘Guantánamo Record Contradicts Claims that Prisoner Abuse was Isolated’, Guardian, 19 May 2004Google Scholar
Jaffer, J. and Singh, A., Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (ACLU New York, October 12, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abu Zubaydah v. Republic of Poland, Appl. No. 7511/13, ECtHR Judgment, 24 July 2014
‘“Platinum” Captives held at Off-Limits Gitmo Camp’, Miami Herald, February 7, 2008, available at:
Shaker Aamer(et al.) v. Barack Obama, 742 F.30 1023 (DC Cir.2014) is a legal challenge to force feeding brought in the US Courts in 2013
‘UN Rapporteur Awaiting Access to Prisoners in Guantánamo’, Caribbean Analysis, 9 March 2012, available at:
Currier, C., ‘Classified in Gitmo Trials: Detainees’ Every Word’, ProPublica, July 17, 2012, available at: Google Scholar
See also In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-01360, Amended Protective Order, January 9, 2009
Hamad v. Gates, No. 07–1098, (DC Cir. 2007) (US), declaration available at:
‘Final Administrative Review Procedures for Guantánamo Detainees’, Department of Defense News, May 18, 2004, available at
Rasul et al. v. George Walker Bush et al. No. 02–5288, 2002
Al Odah v. United States, No. 02–5251, 2002
Rasul was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on March 11, 2003
Al Odah et al. v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (DC Cir. 2003)
Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2003).
Al Odah Shafiq Rasul v. George W. Bush petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, Case 03–334, June 28, 2014, 1
Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.supp 2d 55 (DC Dist. 2002) Cert. granted 124 S. Ct. 534 (2003)
Al Odah et al. v. United States, 321 F.30 1134 (DC Cir. 2003), Cert. granted, 124 S. Ct. 534 (2003)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557, 635 (2006)
Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (DC Cir. 2010)
Denbeaux, M., ‘No Hearing Habeas: DC Circuit Restricts Meaningful Review’ (hereinafter, ‘Seton Hall Habeas Report’), Seton Law School, 2012, p. 1, available at:
Margulies, J., ‘Trapped in Guantánamo’, LA Times, September 29, 2011, available at: Google Scholar
See Kiyemba v. Obama, No. 10–775,563 US (2011)
Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 102 (DC Cir. 2009)
‘Death at Guantánamo Bay’, The New York Times, September 15, 2012, available at:
Lewis, N. A., ‘Qaeda Suspects Face First Military Trials’, International Herald Tribune, February 25, 2004Google Scholar
Hamdan v. US, 696 F.30 1238, 1253, (DC Cir. Ct ADR 2012)
The Secretary of Defense approved the 2010 Manual for Military Commissions, which implements the 2009 MCA
Koh, H. H., ‘The Case Against Military Commissions’, 96 (2002) AJIL337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwoood, R., ‘Al Qaeda, Terrorism and Military Commissions’, 96 (2002) AJIL328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paust, J., ‘Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality’, 23 (2002) Michigan Journal of International Law1Google Scholar
Meron, T., Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Oxford, 1991), p. 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosecutor v. Kordić and Ćerkez, Case No. IT-95–14/2-PT, ICTY (Trial Chamber), Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended Indictment, 2 March 1999 at para. 30
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 14 ff. at para. 218
International Humanitarian Law, 2 (1987) American University Journal of International Law and Policy415, 425–6
Prosecutor Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, October 1995 at para. 70
see, e.g., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles. 27(2) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of 30 January 1987
See Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003)
Lichtblau, E., ‘US, Bowing to Court, to Free “Enemy Combatant”’, The New York Times, September 23, 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Reinette v. France, Appl. No. 14009/88, ECHR, Commission Decision on Admissibility, 2 October (1989), 63 DR 189
IACHR, Precautionary Measures in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, 13 March 2002
Ex parte Quirin, (1942) 317 US 1 at 30–1
Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case IT-96–21-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 16 November 1998 at para. 271
Mallison, W. T. and Mallison, S. V., ‘The Juridical Status of Combatants Under the Geneva Protocol of 1977 Concerning International Conflicts’, 42 (1978) Law and Contemporary Problems4 at 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vierucci, L., ‘What Judicial Treatment for the Guantánamo Detainees’, 3 (2002) German Law Review, available at: Google Scholar
Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96–21-A, Judgment (Appeals Chambers), 20 February 2001 at para. 56
Tadić Appeal Judgment at paras. 164, 73. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999
Department of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps, Washington DC (1997) p. 2
Bevans, C. [Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State] and Sibler, J. [Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense], Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 62 (1968) AJIL754 at 768
Baxter, R., ‘Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary International Law’, 41 (1965–66) BYIL275, p. 286Google Scholar
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Case 03–6696, Supreme Court Certiorari to the united states Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 28 June 2004
Request for Precautionary Measures in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, addressed to the Government of the united states of America on 13 March 2002
Pejic, J., ‘Conflict Classification and the Law Applicable to Detention and the Use of Force’ (hereinafter, ‘Conflict Classification’), ICRC, in Wilmshurst, E. (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford 2012)Google Scholar
Pejic, J., ‘Procedural Principles and Safeguards for Internment/Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence87(858) (2005) International Review of the Red Cross375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 12244/86; 12245/86; 12383/8, Judgment of 30 August 1990, ECtHR Series A, No. 182 at para. 32
Rodley, N. S., ‘Detention as a Response to Terrorism’, in de Frías, A. Salinas, Samuel, K. and White, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar
A and Others Derogation (2009) 49 EHRR 29
Medvedyev and Others v. France, Appl. No. 3394/03, ECTHR, 29 March 2010
Husayn v. Gates, Case No. 1:08-cv-1360, Factual Return for Abu Zubaydah (ISN 10016) (29 July 2009), pp. 1–2
IACtHR, Advisory Opinion on Judicial Guarantees in Situations of Emergency, OC–9/87, 6 October 1987, IACtHR, Series A. No. 9 (1987)
Aksoy v. Turkey, Appl. No. 21987/93, Judgment, ECtHR, 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI at para. 78
Koster v. The Netherlands, Appl. No. 12843/87, Judgment, ECtHR, 28 November 1991
See, e.g., Chahal v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 22414/93, Judgment, ECtHR, of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V at paras. 131, 132
Sakik and Others v. Turkey, Appl. Nos. 23878/94–23883/94, Judgment ECtHR, 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VIII
Brogan v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 11209/84, Judgment, ECtHR, 29 November 1988, Series A, No. 145
Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 14553/89 and 14554/89, Judgment ECtHR, 25 May 1993, Series A, No. 258-B
Sarikaya v. Turkey, Appl. No. 36115/97, Judgment, ECtHR, 22 April 2004
Yurttas v. Turkey, Appl. Nos. 25143/94 and 27098/95, ECtHR, 27 May 2004
Gasser, H. P., ‘Protection of the Civilian Population’, In Fleck, D. (ed), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts (Oxford, 1995), p. 289Google Scholar
See, e.g., Doorson v. Netherlands, Appl. No. 205 24/92, Judgment, ECtHR of 26 March 1996
Reports 1996–II Van Mechelen and Others v. Netherlands, Appl. Nos. 2136/93; 21364/93; 21427/93; 22050/93, Judgment, ECtHR 23 April 1997, Reports 1997–III
Castillo Petruzzi and Others v. Peru (Merits), Judgment, 30 May 1999
Öcalan v. Turkey (Merits), Appl. No. 46221/99, ECtHR Judgment, 12 March 2003 at para. 114
Incal v. Turkey (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Appl. No. 22678/93, ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 9 June 1998
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Sabbah, and Others) v. Egypt, Comm, No 334/06, judgment, ACHPR, 13 February 2012
IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of Guatemala (1983), OEA/Ser.L./V/II. 61, UN Doc. 47 at 96
IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru (2000)
Segundo Informe sobre la Situacion de los Derechos Humanos en Chile (1976), OEA/Ser.L./V/II.37, Doc. 19
IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay (1978), OEA/Ser.L./V/II.43, UN Doc. 19
HRC, Moriana Hernandez Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 5/1977, Views of 15 August 1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/7/D/5/1977
Guzman, F. A., Fuero Militar y Derecho Internacional (International Commission of Jurists, 2003)Google Scholar
US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, February 25, 2000
Goldman, R. and Orentlicher, D., ‘When Justice goes to War: Prosecuting Persons before Military Commissions’, 25 (2) (2002) Harvard Journal of Law and Public-Policy653, 659Google Scholar
Botmeh and Alami v. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 15187/03, Judgment, 7 June 2007, s. 37
Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539 (DC Cir. 2009)
see, e.g., United States v. Khadr (2011) ONCT 3582 0110506 DoCNet: C52C33
Worthington, A., The Guantánamo Files: Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (Ann Arbor, 2007)Google Scholar
Dicker, R., ‘Guantánamo’s Perversion of Justice’, Guardian, 3 September 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Davis, Morris, ‘Guantánamo Exclusive: Former Chief Prosecutor, Ex-Prisoner Call on Obama to Close Prison’, Democracy Now, January 10, 2012, available at: Google Scholar
Singharasa v. Sri Lanka, Comm. No. 1033/2001, HRC, Views of 23 August 2004, UN Doc. CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001
Benen, S., ‘Another Al Qaeda Number 3’, Guest Posting, The Washington Monthly, January 31, 2008, available at: Google Scholar
Cole, D., ‘Military Commissions and the Paradigm of Prevention’, in Gross, O. and Aolain, F. Ni (eds.), Guantánamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions and Policy Perspectives (Cambridge 2013)Google Scholar
Andrews v. United States, Annual Report of the IACHR 1998 at paras. 175–177
IACommHR, Roach James Terry and Jay Pinkerton v. United States, Case 9647, Res. 3/87, September 22, 1987
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 334/06, Judgment, African Commission, 13 February 2012
Gasser, H. P., ‘International Humanitarian Law, an Introduction’, in Haug, H. (ed.), Humanity for All: the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (ICRC, Geneva, Haupt 1993), p. 22Google Scholar
‘Unjust, Unwise, Unamerican: America’s Plans to Set Up Military Commissions for the Trials of Terrorist Suspects is a Big Mistake’, The Economist, 12 July 2003
Lovell, J., ‘Blair Asks Bush to Return Guantánamo Detainees’, Reuters AlertNet, 26 June 2004, available at: Google Scholar
Tempest, M., ‘“No Compromise” on Guantánamo Trials’, Guardian, 25 June 2004, available at: Google Scholar
‘Top-Level Plea for Detainees’, The Argus, 14 September 2006, available at:
Shily, Otto, Süddeutschen Zeitung, March 2004, available at:
Cobain, I., Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture (London, 2012)Google Scholar
Ahmad & Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09 Judgment, ECtHT, 12 April (2012)
Al Jenko v. Gates, Civil Case No. 10–1702 (RJL), (DC Dist. Ct. 2011), dismissed, pp. 11–12
Rasul v. Myers 512 F.3d 644, 660 (DC Cir. 2008)
(Rasul I), vacated Rasul v. Myers 129 S.Ct. 763 (2008)
aff’d Rasul v. Myers 563 F.3d 527 (DC Cir. 2009)
Ratner, M., The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book (New York, 2008)Google Scholar
Borger, J. and Fuchs, D., ‘Spanish Judge to Hear Torture Case against Six Bush Officials’, Guardian, 29 March 2009, available at: Google Scholar
Sands, P., Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law (London, 2008)Google Scholar
Stemple, H., ‘France Judge Requests Access to Guantánamo to Probe Torture Allegations’, The Jurist, January 17, 2012, at Google Scholar
Makhoul, A., ‘French Judge Seeks Access to Guantánamo Amid Torture Probe’, France 24, 18 January 2012 at: Google Scholar
‘US Embassy Cables: Spanish Prosecutor Weighs Guantánamo Criminal Case against US Officials’, Guardian, 1 December 2010, available at:
Meyer, J., ‘The Bush Six’, The New Yorker, April 13, 2009, available at: Google Scholar
Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, in Trials of German Major War Criminals: Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, Part 22 (Nuremberg, 1946–50), p. 447
‘Russian Report Censures US Human Rights Record’, Press TV, 23 October 2012, available at

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats