prohibited acts were found”.535 In 2013, the United States further described measures taken to protect the freedom of religion or belief of Guantánamo detainees. These included providing halal meals and special menus for celebrations; adapting the meal schedule during Ramadan; allowing for daily prayer and worship; providing detainees with copies of the Koran, and with prayer beads, rugs and caps; playing the call to prayer on loudspeakers five times a day and allowing detainees to receive 20 minutes of uninterrupted time to practise their faith after such calls. The United States has also asserted that guards “strive to ensure that detainees are not interrupted during prayer times”.536 Further, in September 2014, a United States official conveyed to ODIHR that there have been no accusations of religious abuse in recent years and that a standard operating procedure on how to handle the Koran had been developed to allow guards to check for weapons and coded messages in the religious book without disrespecting detainees’ religion.537 260. ODIHR welcomes these positive measures to accommodate detainees’ religious needs. However, various sources indicate that detainees’ right to practise their religion may still be unduly restricted. An illustration of these restrictions is the inability of many Guantánamo detainees to pray communally. While detainees held communally in Camp 6 can pray together, detainees held in segregated cells in Camps 5 and 7 have not been provided with the same opportunity.538 The freedom to manifest one’s religion can only be subject to proportional and non-discriminatory limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, public order, public health, public morals or the rights and freedoms of others.539 US officials hold the view that praying in unison through the slots in cell doors constitutes communal prayer.540 ODIHR is concerned that such practice does not enable “communal” prayer in the way that this is conceived of and prescribed by some schools of Islam, and that this may therefore be contrary to an essential element of the manifestation of detainee’s religion.541 US authorities should review this practice to ensure that the grounds for interfering with detainees’ freedom to manifest their religion, as 535 Walsh Report, op. cit., note 422, p. 26. UN CAT, Third to fifth periodic reports of States parties due in 2011, United States of America, op. cit., note 162, para. 219. 537 ODIHR meeting with the Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel and Office of Detainee Policy, op. cit., note 194. 538 Ibid. 539 ICCPR, Art. 18(3); UN HRC, General Comment No. 22, op. cit., note 504, para. 8; OSCE Vienna Document, op. cit., note 90, para. 17; OSCE Copenhagen Document, op. cit., note 80, para. 9.4. 540 ODIHR meeting with the Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel and Office of Detainee Policy, op. cit., note 194. During this interview, US representatives argued that “high-value detainees” can practise their religion, as their door slot is left open during the calls to prayer; they are able to hear the call and speak to each other. They indicated that it is similar to the practice in Camp 5. 541 See, for instance, United States District Court of Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, John Lindh v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Terre Haute, Indiana, Case No. 2:09-cv-00215-JMS-MJD, “Finding of fact and conclusions of law”, 11 January 2013, paras. 25, 54, <http://indianalawblog.com/documents/JWLindhDecision.pdf>: “25. Depending on the school of Islam to which an adherent belongs, making these prayers in congregation, if possible, is either considered to be theologically preferable or required. (…) 54. Due to the specific requirements of group prayer, the need to be aligned properly and the need to have visual or aural contact with the Imam, group prayer can only occur while Muslims are physically together and it cannot be accomplished (…) while the prisoners are confined separately to their individual cells.” The Center for Constitutional Rights also reported that detainees consider that their ability to pray at the same time in their cells in Camp 5 “do[es] not sufficiently allow for communal prayer as prescribed by Islam”. “Current Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo”, Center for Constitutional Rights, op. cit., note 524, p. 13. Attorneys for “high-value detainees” also stated in 2011 that the previous prayer rules, where detainees’ cell doors were open and they would pray from their cells was “not genuine communal prayer”. The new rules are even more restrictive, as explained above. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 108 (MAH, AAA, RBS, WBA), op. cit., note 424, Attachment G, pp. 119-120. 536 112