testimonies and arguments alleging that some of the detainees facing trial before military commissions have not received adequate medical care are of particular concern. AlNashiri’s attorneys for example requested the abatement of the military commission proceedings until Al-Nashiri receives adequate medical care for his diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder and depression.606 Defence lawyers for Ammar al Baluchi told ODIHR that their client suffers from substantial neurological problems for which adequate medical care had not been provided as of February 2014.607 Following a request by al Hawsawi’s defence team stressing that medical care is “sporadic, with lack of continuity, lack of equipment and (…) inadequate to treat [their client’s] myriad conditions”, the IACHR required the United States to adopt precautionary measures to ensure his access to medical care and treatment.608 280. Military commission rulings on this particular issue have differed. The judge in the AlNashiri case concluded that the defence had failed to demonstrate how his medical treatment negatively affected the proceedings and to prove that the government had been deliberately indifferent to Al-Nashiri’s medical needs.609 Another judge in the Mohammad et al. case610 concluded that he “does not have the authority to address issues concerning medical care”.611 These rulings notwithstanding, and in light of concurring allegations and available contextual information, ODIHR remains concerned that adequate medical care may not be provided to military commission defendants. 281. Other concerns have been raised in relation to the medical records of Guantánamo detainees. A motion filed by counsel for detainees facing capital trial before military commissions revealed that the detainees themselves did not have access to their medical records and that their attorneys were denied access as a matter of practice. In comparison, the prosecution appears to have full access to their records.612 This would contravene international standards providing for detainees’ right to access their medical records.613 It is especially concerning in the present cases where the documentation of acts of torture or ill606 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 205JJ, “Ruling – Defense Motion to Abate the Proceedings until the Accused Receives Adequate Medical Care”, 24 March 2015, p. 1; 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. 3740-3741; 3769-3770; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. AlNashiri, “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 4/24/2014 from 1:12 PM to 2:40 PM”, pp. 3840-3841. 607 ODIHR interview with James G. Connell III and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Sterling Thomas, 26 February 2014. 608 “[T]he Commission issues precautionary measures in situations that are serious and urgent, and where such measures are necessary to prevent irreparable harm to persons”. Resolution No. 24/2015, “Matter of Mustafa Adam Al-Hawsawi regarding the United States of America”, IACHR, 7 July 2015, <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/pdf/2015/PM422-14-EN.pdf>. 609 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 205JJ, “Ruling – Defense Motion to Abate the Proceedings until the Accused Receives Adequate Medical Care”, op. cit., note 606, p. 2. 610 The 9/11 case will be referred to as the Mohammad et al. case in this report. 611 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 332C, “Order – Defense Motion for Medical Intervention”, 10 March 2015, p. 2. 612 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 171, “Defense motion for appropriate relief to compel defense examination of the accused's conditions of confinement”, 5 September 2013, Attachment B, “Counsel for Mr. Al Nashiri’s response to Department review of conditions of confinement at Guantánamo Bay”, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, 19 March 2009, para. 12; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 108 (MAH, AAA, RBS, WBA), op. cit., note 424, Attachment C, “Counsel for Mr. Ramzi Bin al Shibh’s response to Department review of conditions of confinement at Guantánamo Bay”, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, 4 March 2009, p. 102. Similarly, habeas corpus counsel for Guantánamo detainees confirmed to ODIHR that lawyers’ access to their clients’ medical files could only be obtained through litigation. 613 UN HRC, General Comment No. 34, op. cit., note 561, para. 18. 121