Chapter4 Access to Justice | 77 the Government was able to prove his Taliban affiliation, the detention was ruled proper. 193 166. Further, on June 18, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in Hussain v. Obama that the AUMF does not contain a requirement that the detainee be part of the “command structure” or engage in active hostilities. It used a holistic test to determine if someone was part of an enemy group as defined by the AUMF. Ultimately, the court also found that the detention was proper. 194 167. On June 18, 2013, in Hussain v. Obama, Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards criticized the way the D.C. Circuit Court handled legal cases of Guantanamo prisoners. He stated in his concurring opinion: I am constrained by the law of the circuit to concur in the judgment of the court. […] I have no authority to stray from precedent. However, when I review a record like the one presented in this case, I am disquieted by our jurisprudence. I think we have strained to make sense of the applicable law, apply the applicable standards of review, and adhere to the commands of the Supreme Court. The time has come for the President and Congress to give serious consideration to a different approach for the handling of the Guantanamo detainee cases. 195 168. According to Judge Edwards, there was no evidence that Hussain ever engaged in any acts of war or terrorism. He asserts that “[t]he majority implicitly shifts the burden of proof from the Government to Hussain […] [r]ather, the salient point is quite simple: the burden of proof was on the Government to make the case against Hussain by a preponderance of the evidence.” 196 169. In addition to the legality of detention, other aspects that have been challenged before federal courts are access to counsel, detainees’ transfers, both of which will be addressed below, evidentiary issues, access to protected information, and the admissibility of statements made during torture. b. Challenges to evidentiary issues 170. In Boumediene the Supreme Court ruled that the “extent of the showing required of the Government in [the Guantanamo habeas] cases is a matter to be determined,” 197 expressly leaving unresolved many evidentiary issues. Therefore, questions such as the standard of proof and the admission of hearsay, that is, out-of-court statements introduced into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, were left to the “expertise and competence” of lower courts. 193 194 195 196 197 Khairkhwa v. Obama, 703 F.3d 547 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Hussain v. Obama, 718 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Hussain v. Obama, 718 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2013), concurring opinion at 5. Hussain v. Obama, 718 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2013), concurring opinion at 4-5. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) at 58. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR