to the extent that they are relevant to the situation of detainees at Guantánamo and the proceedings before the military commissions. 6. The announcement made by the White House in July 2015 that the Obama administration is in the final stages of drafting a plan to safely and responsibly close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay is a welcome commitment, which now needs to materialize. In a positive step, underlining the willingness of the Obama administration to actually close down the facility, the US government has accelerated the pace of transfers to third countries, with 23 transfers in 2014 and 11 between January and 31 August 2015. BACKGROUND AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS 7. The United States has abandoned the Bush administration’s concept of the “war on terror” and now considers itself in an armed conflict without geographical boundaries against al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces (hereinafter, “the global war against terrorism”). The United States also views international humanitarian law as the controlling body of law with regard to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims. Determined by the United States to be “unlawful enemy combatants” or “unprivileged enemy belligerents”, the Guantánamo detainees were initially not entitled to protections under international humanitarian law. Since then, the United States has recognized that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Common Article 3) governs the treatment, including the conditions of detention and interrogation of individuals held at Guantánamo. It has also announced its support to the principles set forth in Article 75 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (API). The United States considers that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not apply extraterritorially. 8. ODIHR is of the view that the “global war against terrorism”, as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purpose of the applicability of international humanitarian law. International and non-international armed conflicts are the two categories of armed conflict recognized under international humanitarian law. The situation in Afghanistan from 7 October 2001 to June 2002 warrant characterization as an international armed conflict whereas after this date, the armed conflict that continued was non-international in nature, despite the involvement of international armed forces. 9. In the context of an armed conflict, international humanitarian law and international human rights law “are complementary, not mutually exclusive”, and states have a duty to apply both bodies of law to achieve the greatest possible protection. International human rights law does not cease to apply in armed conflicts, except in cases of derogations which are to be exceptional, temporary and non-discriminatory, as spelled out, for instance, in the ICCPR. A lex specialis construction (whereby international humanitarian law applies at the exclusion of international human rights law) may only be resorted to where there is an irreconcilable conflict between these two bodies of law. Additionally, international human rights law has defined certain rights considered as non-derogable, such as the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, among others. 8