end of the international armed conflict in Afghanistan, an armed conflict continued which was non-international in nature despite the fact that it involved international armed forces.35 Dual Application and Inter-Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law 111. In the context of armed conflicts, the application of international humanitarian law does not exclude the applicability of international human rights law. On the contrary, rather than involving the displacement of one set of laws in favour of another, these two bodies of law “are complementary, not mutually exclusive”,36 as recognized in international and other case law.37 States have a duty to apply both bodies of law in armed conflicts in order to achieve the greatest possible protection. 112. In other words, international human rights law does not cease to apply in times of war except by operation of specific provisions in human rights treaties whereby a state can derogate from certain rights in a time of public emergency or armed conflict threatening the life of the nation. A lex specialis construction may only be resorted to where there is an irreconcilable conflict between international humanitarian law and international human rights law.38 It should be noted that specific safeguards have been put in place, as spelled out, for instance, in Article 4(1) of the ICCPR, to ensure that derogations from certain rights are exceptional, temporary and non-discriminatory measures. As will be analysed in further detail in the report, certain rights are considered non-derogable, such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the recognition of everyone as a person before the law and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ODIHR notes that the United States has not notified any official derogation from the ICCPR or any other international human rights treaty since 9/11 and has itself 35 “Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014”, ICC, 2 December 2014, para. 79, <http://www.icccpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Pre-Exam-2014.pdf>: “The situation in Afghanistan is usually considered as an armed conflict of a noninternational character between the Afghan Government, supported by the ISAF and US forces on the one hand (pro-government forces), and non-state armed groups, particularly the Taliban, on the other (anti-government groups). The participation of international forces does not change the non-international character of the conflict since these forces became involved in support of the Afghan Transitional Administration established on 19 June 2002”; Stuart Casey-Maslen (ed.), The War Report 2012 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 68-69. 36 UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC), General Comment No. 31, The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para. 11, <http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsjYoiCfMKoIRv2FVaVzRkMjTnj RO%2bfud3cPVrcM9YR0iW6Txaxgp3f9kUFpWoq%2fhW%2fTpKi2tPhZsbEJw%2fGeZRASjdFuuJQRnbJEaUhby31WiQPl2 mLFDe6ZSwMMvmQGVHA%3d%3d>. 37 See, for instance, ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996, para. 25, <http://www.icjcij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf>: “the Court observes that the protection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not cease in times of war, except by operation of Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain provisions may be derogated from in a time of national emergency”; ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, para. 106, <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf>: “More generally, the Court considers that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be found in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. 38 Alex Conte, Director of the International Law and Protection Programmes, International Commission of Jurists, “Exercise of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention by individuals detained in the context of an armed conflict”, Global consultation on the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention, UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 1-2 September 2014, Geneva, p. 2, <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Consultation2014/AlexConte.pdf>. 40