46 | Towards the Closure of Guantanamo 85. 86. 87. 65 66 67 68 on one side, and armed groups, on the other, in the territory of different States, mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan. Therefore, when assessing the human rights situation of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Inter-American Commission may be required to interpret and apply international human rights law in light of the lex specialis of international humanitarian law governing non-international armed conflicts. As the IACHR has previously stated, in this type of conflict, States’ international obligations are governed by both the rules of international human rights law and those of IHL. 65 Both regimes of human rights protection must be interpreted and applied in an integral way within the applicable rules of international law to afford individuals the most favorable standards of protection available under applicable law. 66 The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 clearly defines the protections afforded to prisoners of war in international armed conflicts. Although in non-international armed conflicts States and armed groups also detain individuals for security reasons, there is no explicit legal basis for this type of deprivation of liberty. Common Article 3 and the Second Additional Protocol provide certain minimum standards of treatment, but do not specify legal or procedural safeguards. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has addressed the very specific issue of “security detention” or “internment” understood as the deprivation of liberty in a non-international armed conflict ordered by the executive for security reasons – i.e. outside criminal proceedings. In an expert meeting organized by Chatham House and the ICRC on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, 67 the experts agreed that, although IHL does not provide an explicit legal basis for internment in non-international armed conflicts, “it flows from the practice of armed conflict and the logic of IHL that parties to a conflict may capture persons deemed to pose a serious security threat and that such persons may be interned as long as they continue to pose a threat.” 68 Therefore, given that this practice is not prohibited per se, the analysis should focus then on the requirements that must be met in order to ensure that the detention is not and does not become arbitrary. In this regard, the experts agreed that security detentions must be “necessary” for “imperative reasons of security” (meaning directly related to the armed conflict); ordered on “permissible grounds” under international law; and there should be some form of review mechanism to initially and then periodically assess the lawfulness of internment (i.e. whether it is or remains necessary for security IACHR, Truth, Justice and Reparation: Fourth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 49/13, December 31, 2013, para. 232. IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 8. International Review of the Red Cross, Reports and Documents, Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, Chatham House and International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 22-23 September 2008, Volume 91 Number 876, December 2009. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-876-expert-meeting.pdf International Review of the Red Cross, Reports and Documents, Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflicts, Chatham House and International Committee of the Red Cross, London, 22-23 September 2008, Volume 91 Number 876, December 2009, p. 863. Organization of American States | OAS