questions have however been raised as to whether this right can be effectively exercised, considering the low standard of proof for the government, the deference given by US districts courts to the US government’s reasons for detention, the judges’ reluctance to order the release of individuals viewed as associated with terrorism and the classification of information. 20. Delays encountered in habeas corpus cases, including of more than two years, are in violation with the prohibition of arbitrary detention under international law which stipulates that such challenges must be determined without delay, usually within several weeks. 21. Contrary to international standards, US courts have not ordered the immediate release of detainees following successful habeas corpus petitions. Though some delays in transferring detainees out of Guantánamo following a judicial finding of unlawful detention may occur due to the complexities of such transfers, continued detention following such ruling, particularly in excess of several months, violates international standards on the prohibition of arbitrary detention. 22. Until the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush in 2004, Guantánamo detainees were denied access to counsel for up to two years of their detention whereas international human rights standards provides for “prompt and regular access” to counsel. When detainees were arrested outside of any armed conflict or after the end of the international armed conflict in Afghanistan, a delay of several months to two years before receiving any legal assistance violates the ICCPR. 23. While detainees now have the right to counsel as a matter of law, logistical constraints and policies of the Joint Task Force Guantánamo continue to hinder, even sometimes to prevent, regular access to lawyers. In particular, the full-body search applied to detainees, including for meetings and phone calls with attorneys, appears excessively invasive and has resulted in some cases in denial of access to counsel. Under international human rights law, restrictions to access to counsel should be exceptional, temporary, decided on a caseby-case basis, justified and necessary for security and safety reasons, and should not result in the full denial of the right of access to counsel. Conditions of, and Treatment in, Detention 24. The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and non-derogable. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including threats of terrorist acts or armed conflict, may justify acts of torture. The torture prohibition is part of customary international law and a peremptory norm of international law. The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is also guaranteed under international humanitarian law and is a norm of customary international humanitarian law. 25. The definition of torture under US legislation is narrower than the definition provided in the CAT and may therefore allow for conduct otherwise prohibited under international law. The United States has a different understanding of the intent element and the concept of 11