74 | Towards the Closure of Guantanamo A. Right to an effective remedy 157. The right to judicial protection is reflected in Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration as follows: Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal right. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights. Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon. 158. The State’s duty to provide effective judicial remedies is not served merely by their formal existence; that recourse must also be adequate and effective in remedying the human rights violations denounced. Further, the existence of an armed conflict or of a state of emergency cannot entail the suppression or ineffectiveness of the judicial guarantees that a State is required to establish for the protection of the rights not subject to derogation or suspension, such as the right to life and to personal integrity. 180 The right to judicial protection when necessary to protect such interests as life or personal integrity is not subject to suspension. 1. Proceedings before federal courts 159. The first habeas corpus petition on behalf of a Guantanamo prisoner was filed in February 2002. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. District Court) dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that non-citizens detained outside sovereign U.S. territory had no right to habeas proceedings. On June 28, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush reversed that decision, holding that U.S. federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo detainees. 181 Almost two and a half years after the opening of the facility, detainees at Guantanamo had, for the first time, access to the courts. 182 160. In December 2005 the United States Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) establishing that no court “shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained […] at Guantanamo […] or any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention.” 183 Further, according to the DTA, any new habeas 180 181 182 183 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 343. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). On that same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004) that the Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a U.S. citizen detainee held as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before an impartial authority. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Sec. 1005 (e). Organization of American States | OAS