Moreover, international humanitarian law and the use of terms, such as combatants, “prisoners of war” and civilians who “take a direct part in hostilities” are only relevant during armed conflicts within the meaning of international humanitarian law.63 119. ODIHR has not sought to carry out an individual analysis of the status of the detainees to determine how many can be classified as civilians. Nevertheless, ODIHR is of the view that the detainees held at Guantánamo, including those charged before the military commissions, do include civilians. This is based on ODIHR’s view that, with regard to the rights, status and protections of detainees, the definition of civilian includes all persons who do not fall within the definition of combatant,64 (applicable, as stated, only to international armed conflicts and to carefully defined criteria under international humanitarian law) as well as all detainees who were not arrested in the context of an armed conflict. In particular, ODIHR considers that the “global war against terrorism” cannot be understood to confer combatant status to persons detained for conduct outside of an armed conflict. Extraterritorial Application of International Human Rights Law 120. The United States questions the applicability of some international human rights treaty obligations to the situations of detainees in Guantánamo, arguing that such obligations do not apply extraterritorially, thus reiterating its consistent position since 1995. The United States maintains that Article 2(1) of the ICCPR65 is applicable only to individuals who are both within the territory of a State party and under that State party’s jurisdiction. In other words, the United States has insisted that the ICCPR should not apply to individuals outside its territory.66 On this particular point, ODIHR emphasizes the conclusion of the UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) that the United States should “interpret the Covenant in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context, including subsequent practice, and in the light of the object and purpose of the Covenant, and review its legal position so as to acknowledge the extraterritorial application of the Covenant under certain circumstances”.67 121. The US position is inconsistent with the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the ICCPR by the UN Human Rights Committee and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Both the Human Rights Committee and the International Court of Justice have explained that the 63 “Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 3”, ICRC website, op. cit., note 44. The definition includes “[m]embers of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces” and “[m]embers of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied” who fulfil certain conditions. Third Geneva Convention, Art. 4(A). 65 “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” [emphasis added]. ICCPR, New York, 16 December 1966, Art. 2(1), <http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>. 66 “Human Rights Committee considers report of the United States”, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) website, 14 March 2014, <http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14383&LangID=E>. 67 UN HRC, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of America, 23 April 2014, CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para. 4, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/USA/CO/4&Lang=En>. 64 46