2008, the Supreme Court found that CSRTs denied detainees counsel, extensively used classified information that was withheld from the detainee, allowed the use of hearsay evidence and created a “considerable risk of error in [its] finding of fact”.238 Additionally, the government did not use witnesses, the government’s classified evidence was presumed to be reliable, detainees received only a summary of the government’s classified evidence, detainees’ requests for calling witnesses and producing evidence were often denied, and new reviews were typically ordered when the CSRTs determined that detainees were not enemy combatants.239 171. The ARB was also an administrative mechanism which consisted of three military officers that reviewed each detainee’s case. Each year the ARB would assess whether a detainee should be released, transferred or subjected to continued detention.240 It did not review the lawfulness of the detainees’ detention. CSRTs and the ARB are no longer used. 172. Despite the decision in Rasul v. Bush, which allowed detainees to challenge their detention in US courts, no habeas corpus petition was decided on the merits until after the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the Suspension Clause applied to detainees.241This effectively means that, from 2002 to 2008, detainees did not have effective access to an independent court to challenge the legality of their detention as required by international human rights law.242 Although the Third Geneva Convention does not require a review of the detention of prisoners of war, unless their status as a prisoner of war is in doubt, the United States has not recognized any detainees as prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention requires either a judicial or an administrative board review, but this Convention was no longer applicable following the end of the international armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2002. Given the deficiencies of CSRTs outlined by the United States Supreme Court and other reports, this administrative review did not offer the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality as required by the Fourth Geneva Convention.243 Thus, the 238 United States Supreme Court, Boumediene v. Bush, op. cit., note 73; Hafetz, “Calling the Government to Account”, op. cit., note 159, p. 13. 239 Mark Denbeaux, Joshua Denbeaux et al., “No-Hearing Hearings - CSRT: the Modern Habeas Corpus?”, Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 951245, pp. 4-6, <http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/final_no_hearing_hearings_report.pdf>. 240 United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, “Order: Administrative Review Procedures for Enemy Combatants in the Control of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba”, 11 May 2004, <http://www.defense.gov/news/May2004/d20040518gtmoreview.pdf >; United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, “Memorandum: Revised Implementation of Administrative Review Procedures for Enemy Combatants Detained at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”, 14 July 2006, <http://www.defense.gov/news/Aug2006/d20060809ARBProceduresMemo.pdf>. 241 After Rasul v. Bush and until the Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush, the DTA and MCA 2006 prevented courts from hearing habeas corpus cases. DTA, § 1005(e); MCA 2006, § 7. Laws preventing habeas corpus review also violate the ICCPR. UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, op. cit., note 92, para. 46; Hafetz, “Calling the Government to Account”, op. cit., note 159, p. 17. While the DTA 2005 created a judicial mechanism of CSRT determinations, the United States Supreme Court found in Boumediene v. Bush that it failed to provide “an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ”. The first decision on the merits related to a petition for the review of a CSRT determination under the DTA is dated June 2008, after the Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Parhat v. Gates, Case No. 06-1397, 20 June 2008. 242 ICCPR, Art. 9. 243 Commentary on Art. 43, Fourth Geneva Convention, ICRC website, op. cit., note 139; Commentary on Art. 78, Fourth Geneva Convention, ICRC website, op. cit., note 139; IACHR, Coard et al. v. United States, op. cit., note 111, para. 55; United States Supreme Court, Boumediene v. Bush, op. cit., note 73; Hafetz, “Calling the Government to Account”, op. cit., note 159, p. 13; Denbeaux, Denbeaux et al., “No-Hearing Hearings”, op. cit., note 239, pp. 4-6; UN Working Group on arbitrary detention, Obaidullah v. United States of America, op. cit., note 197, paras. 16, 35: “The CSRT and ARB administrative review hearings 70