reiterated that “a time of war does not suspend the operation of the Covenant to matters within its scope of application”.39 It also takes note of the US position that while “international human rights law and the law of armed conflict are in many respects complementary and mutually reinforcing”,40 the latter is the controlling body of law with regard to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims. 113. ODIHR considers that those Guantánamo detainees captured in the context of the international armed conflict in Afghanistan were entitled, until the end of the conflict, to the protection of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, consistent with the provisions of the ICCPR and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as relevant customary international law. Protections under international human rights law continue to be applicable in armed conflicts except as specifically provided by authorized derogations.41 According to this, detainees should have been repatriated to their country or prosecuted for war crimes at the end of the inter-state conflict.42 Moreover, certain obligations under international humanitarian law continue to apply after the cessation of an armed conflict. 114. Many of the detainees at Guantánamo were apprehended outside, and/or unconnected to, any armed conflict. In such cases, international humanitarian law does not apply, and international human rights standards alone govern their arrest and detention. Status of Detainees 115. International humanitarian law does not explicitly refer to unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents. Instead, in the context of an international armed conflict, international humanitarian law makes reference to “combatants” and “prisoners of war” and defines civilians as persons who do not fall into either of those categories.43 In the context of an armed conflict of a non-international character, the terms combatant and prisoner of war do not apply.44 In both international and non-international armed conflicts, civilians may lose their protection from attack because they have directly participated in 39 UN HRC, Fourth periodic report of the United States of America, CCPR/C/USA/4, 30 December 2011, para. 506, <http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=CCPR/C/USA/4>. 40 UN HRC, Fourth periodic report of the United States of America, ibid., para. 507: “it is important to bear in mind that international human rights law and the law of armed conflict are in many respects complementary and mutually reinforcing. These two bodies of law contain many similar protections.” 41 ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, op. cit., note 37, para. 106. 42 Third Geneva Convention, Art. 118; UN Special Procedures, “Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay”, op. cit., note 23, paras. 22-24. 43 “A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.” Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Geneva, 8 June 1977, Art. 50, <https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4&action=openDocu ment>. 44 Instead, individuals may be referred to by a variety of terms, including armed forces, dissident armed forces and other organized armed groups, civilians taking direct part in hostilities, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities, persons who take a direct part in hostilities, combatant adversary, etc. “Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 3: Definition of Combatants”, ICRC website, <https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule3>. 41