Human rights law applies at all times, even during times of emergency and war. Conversely, the US government does its utmost to deprive Guantanamo detainees of this fundamental human law principle.

The judicial review process in the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) was at first unreasonably delayed and then made in undue haste. The CSRT was set up in July 2004 some two and a half years after the detentions began at Guantanamo. In contrast, according to a study of 102 CSRTs, in 81 per cent of cases the CSRT panels decision was reached on the same day as the tribunal hearing.

Thousands of miles from home, detainees facing indefinite detention without charge or trial are denied access to legal counsel for the unfamiliar and unfair CSRT system that will determine their future. The government selects a US military officer as the detainees Personal Representative. He cannot be a lawyer and his relationship to the detainee is not confidential.

The CSRT relies on a black box of information provided by the military and withheld from the prisoner, who must confront this unseen information without counsel. Moreover, there is no meaningful opportunity for the prisoner to gather and present contrary evidence. In the Boumediene case, the government notes that in most cases, classified information formed part of the basis for the governmentҒs determination that they were enemy combatants, and rejected as a 'startling proposition' that a detainee should know what the information was. Besides, information obtained through torture or other ill-treatment can be introduced through hearsay or statements from other detainees held in the coercive detention regime at Guantanamo or elsewhere. This is even more alarming, considering that CSRT panel members were rarely provided any information about the source of the information, including whether the source was detained or subjected to coercive interrogation techniques.

In this context, it is worth considering the case of Chinese Uighur detainee Ali Mohammed. Prior to the second CSRT panels consideration of his case, an email from Pentagon authorities told it that ғpoints to consider included the fact that other identically situated Uighurs had been classified as 'enemy combatants' and that 'inconsistencies will not cast a favourable light on the CSRT process'. As a leading US lawyer put it, 'unlike in a conversational hearing, where the tribunal listens to the evidence and then announces its result, in a CSRT, the superiors announce the result, and then convene the hearing'. If the result is ever not to their liking, they can order a new hearing.

The decision of a CSRT represents a potential life sentence for a detainee. It is the governmentԒs position that it is legal to hold a declared 'enemy combatant' in custody until the war on terrorism has been concluded. Correspondingly, President Bush reiterated that the 'war on terror is a generational struggle'. With this insight, a thorough judicial process is all the more important. The CSRT system, however, is not only far from perfect, it is being used to seek to persuade the judiciary to accept the internationally unlawful denial of habeas corpus, thereby protecting not the public from terrorist attacks but the executive from judicial scrutiny of its actions.