information about sources and methods. “They don’t tell us where they got the information...We don’t know whether the methods used were human or technical, or [even whether] the information comes from a third country.”137 The trial of the five former Guantanamo Bay detainees raised critical questions about the DCRI’s “two-hat” (double casquette) mandate (at the time, the agency involved was called the DST) – the fact that agents can perform both intelligence-gathering for operational purposes as well as judicially-authorized investigations with a view to producing evidence. The defense argued that the interrogations conducted at Guantanamo Bay were illegal because the agents had acted in their capacity as judicial police, collecting information later used to justify and substantiate the judicial investigation against the men, but without disclosing the material to the defense as required. The Correctional Court ultimately accepted the prosecution’s argument that the DST agents had acted in their capacity as intelligence officers and there had been no breach of the rules of procedure with respect to disclosure of evidence. In February 2009, the Appeals Court overturned the convictions, taking the view that the DST had violated the rules of criminal procedure and principles of international law by confusing its two roles.138 In February 2010, the Court of Cassation annulled this ruling, arguing that the Appeals Court had failed to substantiate sufficiently its conclusions that the right to defense of the accused had been prejudiced. Following the Court of Cassation judgment, a fresh appeal against the conviction will be heard by a different chamber of the Appeals Court.139 Use of the fruit of the poisoned tree The ease with which sensitive intelligence material is put to use in judicial proceedings is a source of pride to French counterterrorism officials and specialized investigating judges.140 The specialized investigating judge may authorize any number of investigative steps, including arrests, on the basis of intelligence information alone. In doing so, the judge will normally not know—or take any particular interest in—the sources or methods used to acquire the information. The goal is to acquire corroborating evidence through judiciallyauthorized acts. French counterterrorism prosecutor Philippe Maitre has said, “There is no 137 Human Rights Watch interview with Jean-Louis Bruguière, February 26, 2008. 138 Cour d’Appel de Paris, 10eme Chambre, Section A, Arrêt du 24 fevrier 2009, Dossier no. 08/00786. On file with Human Rights Watch. 139 Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, Arrêt du 17 février 2010, No. 842. On file with Human Rights Watch. 140 Human Rights Watch interview, Jean-Louis Bruguière, former investigating judge, Paris, February 26, 2008; Human Rights Watch interview with counterterrorism official who request anonymity, Paris, December 12, 2007 49 Human Rights Watch | June 2010