treatment suffered by the defendants and their impact on their health could potentially affect the outcome of their cases. ODIHR notes that defence counsel in these two cases now have access to some medical records. The records are nevertheless said to be incomplete and to lack information such as the causes of particular disorders, the providers of medical treatment, or even entire periods of detention. These records would fail to fully document mistreatment and its impact on detainees’ health.614 282. Finally, serious questions arise in relation to the resources and equipment available at Guantánamo to treat an aging population increasingly presenting complex medical problems.615 International standards provide that detainees should be transferred to external facilities if necessary specialized treatment is not available on site.616 While detainees may be treated at the Naval Hospital on the main base, Marine General John F. Kelly, the Commander of the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), would have recently acknowledged the “lack [of] certain specialty medical capabilities necessary to treat potentially complex emergencies and various chronic diseases.”617 283. In relation to the lack of specific medical equipment, available information indicates that the United States may lease a magnetic resonance imaging machine for 30 to 180 days to comply with a judicial order.618 This follows a military judge’s order to examine AlNashiri’s brain for forensic purposes (as opposed to his immediate medical needs), since his “past or current brain trauma, to include memory loss as a result of prior abuse by the Government, if true, (…) would indeed be mitigating factors” in the case.619 614 ODIHR interview with Scott Allen, op. cit., note 231; ODIHR interview with Richard Kammen, 7 March 2014; ODIHR interview with Navy Commander Brian Mizer, 4 March 2014; ODIHR interview with James G. Connell III and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Sterling Thomas, op. cit., note 607. Interlocutors were not able to provide details as to the contents of the medical records since these are classified. See, also, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 4/24/2014 from 09:06 AM to 11:20 AM”, op. cit., note 604, pp. 37423746. 615 “Medical Care and Medical Ethics at Guantanamo”, The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment website, op. cit., note 604, p. 8. 616 “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”, op. cit., note 280, Rule 22(2). 617 Carol Rosenberg, “General to Congress: Guantánamo’s hidden prison problems ‘increasingly unsustainable’”, Miami Herald website, 26 February 2014, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1960805.html>. 618 While a mobile magnetic resonance imaging machine was purchased for delivery in early 2013, it was reportedly stored for a year and sent to an Army Medical Center in the United States. Carol Rosenberg, “Guantánamo judge orders MRI of USS Cole defendant’s brain, abates trial”, Miami Herald website, 10 April 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nationworld/world/americas/guantanamo/article18204251.html#storylink=cpy>; Carol Rosenberg, “Mystery solved: Southcom leasing MRI to study brain of Guantánamo prisoner, perhaps others”, Miami Herald website, 14 July 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article27248545.html>. 619 In this case, the defence had argued that the examination would “not only result in better treatment and a defendant that may be able to meaningfully participate in his defence, but it will also provide additional evidence in mitigation that is relevant to his past cooperation, or lack thereof, with law enforcement or detention officials, his conditions of confinement, and whether Mr. AlNashiri is a continuing threat to society”. Considering that the request for this examination was “framed as a request for adequate medical care” and that the defence “did not establish the care provided to the Accused was inadequate”, the military judge denied it in September 2014. Upon reconsideration of the ruling, the judge granted the defence’s request, finding “further inquiry into the Defense’s claims of the Accused’s neuropsychological infirmity both relevant and necessary for mitigation”. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 277H, “Ruling –Defense motion for Appropriate Relief: Order a Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) of Mr Al-Nashiri’s Brain”, 29 September 2014, pp. 1-2; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 277M, “Ruling – Defense motion for Appropriate Relief: Order a Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) of Mr Al-Nashiri’s Brain”, 9 April 2015, pp. 3-4. 122