conduct a systematic analysis of the protections afforded to defendants in ordinary courts compared to those available to Guantánamo detainees, ODIHR takes note that adverse differences are said to include, among others: the lack of constitutional due process protections in military commission trials;755 the potential for admissibility of some coerced statements when they were obtained through coercion that falls short of torture and other abuses listed in the MCA;756 and the potential for admissibility of hearsay evidence that would not be admissible before ordinary courts.757 ODIHR also notes that US courts have held that the distinction between aliens and citizens in the MCA does not violate the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.758 Nonetheless, it is ODIHR’s view that the differentiation in treatment between citizens and aliens appears detrimental to non-US citizens. This would run contrary to the right of aliens to equal treatment before the courts.759 330. This distinction of treatment between citizens and aliens cannot be justified by objective and reasonable criteria. ODIHR notes that previous military commissions could apparently try US citizens760 and the Supreme Court of the United States itself had concluded citizenship to be irrelevant to the jurisdiction of a military commission.761 Furthermore, the 755 Clutter, “Guantanamo: Ten Years After 9/11”, ibid.; “House Passes Changes to Guantánamo Military Commissions”, American Civil Liberties Union website, ibid.; “Myth v. Fact”, Human Rights First website, op. cit., note 694, p. 2. 756 “CCR Condemns President Obama’s Embrace of Military Commission System”, Center for Constitutional Rights website, op. cit., note 754; Joanne Mariner, “A First Look at the Military Commissions Act of 2009, Part Two”, FindLaw website, 30 November 2009, <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091130.html>; “House Passes Changes to Guantánamo Military Commissions”, American Civil Liberties Union website, ibid; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Hamdan v. United States of America, “Brief of Amici Curiae”, op. cit., note 754, p. 3; Praust, “Still Unlawful”, op. cit., note 754, p. 386. 757 “CCR Condemns President Obama’s Embrace of Military Commission System”, Center for Constitutional Rights website, ibid.; Laura Pitter, “Guantanamo’s system of injustice”, Salon website, 19 January 2012, <http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/guantanamos_system_of_injustice/>; Praust, “Still Unlawful”, ibid., p. 383; Marjorie Cohn, “Guantanamo Prisoner Al-Nashiri’s Case Demonstrates Unfairness of Military Commissions”, Truthout website, 18 June 2013, <http://truth-out.org/news/item/17058-guantanamo-prisoner-al-nashiris-case-demonstrates-unfairness-of-militarycommissions#>; ODIHR interview with the American Civil Liberties Union, 28 February 2014, op. cit., note 255; ODIHR interview with Navy Commander Brian Mizer, op. cit., note 614. 758 In United States of America v. Hamdan, op. cit., note 630, the United States Court of Military Commission Review held that “Analyzing the comparative rights and protections afforded by the M.C.A. in comparison to the UCMJ and criminal defendants in domestic federal District Courts, we are satisfied that the equal protection element of the due process clause has been met in this case”, “[w]e find, therefore, that Congress had a rational basis for the disparate treatment of aliens in the M.C.A. and that such disparate treatment does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment”. The US CMCR upheld this decision in United States of America v. al Bahlul on the basis of the reasons stated in Hamdan. United States Court of Military Commission Review, United States of America v. Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul, Case 09-001, 9 September 2011. Similarly, the military commission in Al-Nashiri denied a motion related to the equal protection argument on the basis of the Hamdan decision. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 046B, “Ruling – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Because the Military Commissions Act Violates the Equal Protection Component of the Due Process Clause”, 19 June 2012. 759 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 65; UN HRC, General Comment No. 15, op. cit., note 739, para. 7; Nowak, CCPR Commentary, op. cit., note 93, p. 308. See, also, Praust, “Still Unlawful”, op. cit., note 754, p. 381. 760 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, al Bahlul v. United States of America, “Brief of Petitioner”, 13 August 2014, pp. 48-50, <http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/8-13-14-PetitionerBrief.pdf>. See, also, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Hamdan v. United States of America, “Brief of Amici Curiae”, op. cit., note 754, pp. 13-14; Glazier, “The Development of an Exceptional Court”, op. cit., note 754, p. 37. 761 “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.” United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Quirin, op. cit., note 669; “United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 104 (AAA), “Motion to Dismiss the Charges Because the Military Commission Act of 2009 Exceeds Congress’ Power Under the Define and Punish Clause”, 24 October 2012, pp. 19-20. 144