CCPR/C/115/D/2005/2010 to challenge such evidence is compounded by the very low threshold for the admissibility of evidence generally – that the evidence “would have probative value to a reasonable person”.3 This departs from the higher, more protective threshold for regular United States courts martial. The author’s plea agreement was based entirely on the stipulation of facts of the prosecution. The evidentiary bases of the allegations in the stipulation were not disclosed to the author, making impossible for him to properly know the provenance of the evidence or to challenge its reliability or the methods of its collection. 26. Measures for the protection of classified information4 did not enable the author to know the allegations against him with sufficient particularity and he was thus unable to adequately answer the charges against him. His military lawyer was prohibited from sharing classified evidence with him. Claims under article 14 (3) (g) regarding the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilty 27. Under the Military Commissions Act, § 948r (c) and (d), evidence obtained from the author by coercion during interrogation was admissible at the judge’s discretion where “the degree of coercion is disputed”. The United States denied that evidence was obtained from the author by coercion. Claims under article 14 (5) regarding the right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal 28. Under the Military Commissions Act, § 950g (c), the right to appeal was limited to a matter of law. His plea agreement required him to surrender any right of appeal, including an appeal on matters of law. Claims under articles 2 and 26 regarding non-discrimination 29. The author’s trial involved unlawful discrimination on the basis of national origin, as the Military Commissions Act applies only to the prosecution of “alien” unlawful combatants.5 By contrast, United States citizens were entitled to a higher standard of justice in either regular military courts martial or in civilian courts. Claims under article 7 regarding treatment while in United States custody 30. There is a high likelihood that evidence obtained against the author was tainted by the torture, inhuman or degrading treatment of witnesses under interrogation by the United States authorities and when obtaining admissions from the author himself. 31. The definition of torture in the Rules for Military Commissions6 for the purpose of the evidentiary exclusion is too narrow to exclude the range of evidence that should properly be excluded as obtained by torture under international human rights law. 32. Under the Military Commissions Act, § 948r, evidence obtained by coercion prior to 30 December 2005 may be admitted at the judge’s discretion where “the degree of coercion is disputed” and the following conditions are met: “(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and (2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence”. Evidence obtained on or after 30 December 2005 may be admitted in the same 3 4 5 6 18 Military Commissions Act, § 949a (b) (2) (A). Ibid., § 949d (f) (1) (A). Ibid., § 948d (a). Rule 304.