94 | Towards the Closure of Guantanamo forth.””261 While international human rights standards recognize that there may be legitimate differences in treatment between citizens and non-citizens for such limited purposes as entry at borders and nationality, or for the purpose of residence or voting, these standards do not recognize or permit distinctions in respect for other fundamental rights, including the rights to life, personal integrity, equal protection of and before the law, and due process. 224. In the situation under analysis, the Government of the United States decided to set up a detention facility outside the territory of the United States for the exclusive purpose of detaining aliens suspected of terrorism, all of whom are Muslim. It also designed a special system of military commissions to try them, without the procedural guarantees available in federal courts. Therefore, it is a fact that the United States gives these prisoners a different treatment than that given to other prisoners under its custody, whether nationals or aliens. The United States has justified the creation of this separate regime, characterized by indefinite detention, limited or no access to judicial protection, and trial absent basic elements of due process, by invoking the exigencies of the war on terror. It has provided no clear justification for the exclusive application of this regime to foreign Muslim men, presenting the apparent targeting of individuals in relation to nationality, ethnicity and religion. 225. Considering that federal courts have proven to be capable in effectively dealing with high-profile cases of terrorism, some related to Al-Qaeda and the “war on terrorism,” and that federal prisons securely hold more than 300 individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses, 262 a less restrictive alternative exists. 226. Having monitored the situation since its initiation, the IACHR concludes that the existence of a particularly severe detention regime and a severely restrictive justice system exclusively designed to hold and try aliens, all of them Muslim, constitutes a violation of the nondiscrimination clause in the American Declaration. Equal protection before the law and non-discrimination are among the most basic human rights. States are required to ensure that their laws, policies and practices respect those rights. The IACHR reiterates that “international human rights law not only prohibits policies and practices that are deliberately discriminatory in nature, but also those whose effect is to discriminate against a certain category of persons, even when discriminatory intent cannot be shown.”263 227. In this regard, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the right of access to the courts and to equality before them “is not limited to citizens of States parties, but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, or whatever their status […] who may find themselves in the territory 261 262 263 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc 40.rev (February 28, 2000), para. 96. See Human Rights First, Fact sheet, Myth v. Fact: Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts. Available at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Federal_Court_Myth_vs_Fact.pdf IACHR, Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 78/10, December 30, 2010, para. 95. Organization of American States | OAS