procedures that would violate their profession’s code of ethics, or their religious and moral beliefs.453 It also welcomes the statement that should a medical procedure be illegal, “every military member of every specialty has an obligation to do all in his or her power to stop it or refuse participation”.454 233. Furthermore, ODIHR is troubled by reports indicating that the current force-feeding process at Guantánamo inflicts “gratuitous pain and suffering” on hunger strikers. It has been alleged that “extraction teams” forcibly taking detainees from their cells to feeding sessions use disproportionate force and violence to overpower detainees and illustrate “who is in control”, that feeding tubes are too thick and are forcibly and painfully reinserted for each feeding, as well as that fluids are forced into detainees at excessive speed, causing severe enteral pain, inter alia.455 A restraint chair is also used for enteral feedings as a matter of policy since late 2005.456 234. US Department of Defense representatives indicated to ODIHR that the use of force, if needed, is kept to a minimum, further explaining that extraction teams are used to transport detainees to enteral feedings when they refuse to freely do so.457 The force-feeding of Guantánamo detainees has also been the subject of extensive debate in US federal courts, as reflected for instance by the Dhiab v. Obama case. The judge in this particular case successively denied a request to end the force-feeding of Abu Wa’el Dhiab on jurisdictional grounds,458 decided a temporary ban on his force-feeding which was 453 “Ethical Guidelines and Practices for U.S. Military Medical Professionals”, Defense Health Board, 3 March 2015, p. ES7, <http://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2015/03/03/Ethical-Guidelines-and-Practices-for-US-Military-MedicalProfessionals>. 454 Ibid., p. ES5. 455 The force-feeding protocol at Guantánamo is being litigated before US federal courts. The allegations mentioned above have been made by detainees and their counsel on several occasions. See, for instance, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Imad Abdullah Hassan v. Barack H. Obama, Case No. 04-cv-1194 (UNA), “Statement of Points and Authorities in Support of Petitioner’s Application for Preliminary Injunction”, 11 March 2014, <http://www.reprieve.org/uploads/2/6/3/3/26338131/2014.03.11_-_hassan_brief_and_exhibits_-_compressed.pdf>; United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab v. Barack H. Obama, Case No. 05-1457, “Petitioner’s notice of filing of expert report of Stephen N. Xenakis, M.D., LLC”, 15 September 2014, <http://www.reprieve.org/uploads/2/6/3/3/26338131/2014_09_15_pub_expert_report_-_xenakis.pdf>. See, also, “Statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture at the Expert Meeting on the situation of detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay - Inter-American Commission on Human Rights”, OHCHR website, op. cit., note 108; Ethics Abandoned, op. cit., note 430, p. xxvi. ODIHR interview with Lakhdar Boumediene, op. cit., note 216. Lakhdar Boumediene described to ODIHR the procedure used when he was force-fed prior to his release in May 2009: “The normal procedure is that you are taken to the chair (…) There are eight belts, wrists, head, legs, waist (…) [If you refused to do what they said] they would bring (…) the IRF team (…) [and sometimes] use pepper spray (…) Literally all seven would come at me (…) they would take you regardless of how many bones would be fractured. They would just grab you and throw you on the chair. (...) They would tighten the belts so much on my stomach [that my stomach could not keep anything]. (…) Only very few people persist [with their hunger strike] in spite of this torture”. 456 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Dhiab v. Obama, Exhibit 33A, “Health Declaration”, “Declaration of Colonel David E. Heath”, 26 September 2014, para. 8, <https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1309854/guantanamo-hunger-strike-tps-and-sops.pdf>; United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Dhiab v. Obama, 7 November 2014, p. 13, <http://www.reprieve.org/uploads/2/6/3/3/26338131/2014_11_07_pub_kessler_opn_denying_mot_prelim_injunction.pdf>; Ethics Abandoned, op. cit., note 430, p. xxvi. 457 ODIHR Meeting with the Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel and Office of Detainee Policy, op. cit., note 194. 458 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Dhiab v. Obama, 8 July 2013, <http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/gitmo-order.pdf?utm_source=Press+mailing+list&utm_campaign=8f48b175162013_07_08_Gtmo_forcefeeding_controls&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_022da08134-8f48b17516-285915546>. 100