them did not meet the MON standard for detention. “High-value detainees” were held in incommunicado detention under the RDI programme from periods of 16 months up to almost four and half years, placed in solitary confinement, outside any judicial control and the protections afforded under both international humanitarian and human rights law, including the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, to have access to a counsel or notify their relatives and to exercise other applicable rights. Accordingly, the CIA RDI programme violated both international humanitarian law and human rights law that prohibit the use of enforced disappearances and unacknowledged detention as well as arbitrary arrest and detention. 48. Detainees were also subjected to “varying degrees” of interrogation techniques (including techniques that had not yet been legally sanctioned or went beyond what was authorized) approved by the Bush administration. Most of those techniques, whether inflicted individually or in combination, undoubtedly amounted to torture or ill-treatment. While some of the techniques, taken individually, may not have reached the threshold of torture, their use in combination and over prolonged periods of time to create discomfort and to “break” the detainees has constituted ill-treatment or even torture. President Obama’s Executive Order to close any remaining CIA detention facility and prohibit any such detention facility in the future is a positive development, though it may still allow the CIA to detain individuals on short-term basis before transferring them to third countries for interrogation or trial. 49. Involvement of other OSCE participating States in the CIA RDI programme. Fiftyfour countries, including 27 OSCE participating States, reportedly participated in various forms in the CIA RDI programme. They “knew or ought to have known” that the detainees faced a real risk of torture, ill-treatment or arbitrary detention when transferring individuals into US custody, at least from 2002-2003 when information on that programme became publicly available. Their responsibility as accomplice under international law is engaged in that regard. HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES COMMISSIONS IN THE PROSECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS BEFORE MILITARY Jurisdiction of the Military Commissions 50. Some detainees have been charged with violations of the laws of war for conduct that likely occurred outside any armed conflict. Therefore, such detainees are civilians and could not be classified as either a combatant or even a civilian directly participating in hostilities. 51. The trials of civilians by the Guantánamo military commissions, including civilians who did not directly participate in hostilities, are neither “exceptional” nor “necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons”, as interpreted by international human rights bodies. On the contrary, US ordinary federal courts are and have been considered as appropriate venues to conduct trials for alleged violations of the law of war, able to protect classified information as well as the safety and security of all participants in trials. The 16