of time.250 The Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 9(4) of the ICCPR when an individual was not released immediately and remained in detention for two months after his detention was determined to be unlawful.251 In the majority of successful habeas corpus cases, the United States has continued to detain individuals beyond two months, in some cases for over four years.252 ODIHR notes that the transfer of detainees is complicated by various issues, including the need to ensure that detainees are not tortured or persecuted once transferred as well as logistical issues resulting from the location of the detention facility. ODIHR also observes that the US government is currently unable to transfer detainees to the United States.253 Though some delay may occur due to the complexities of transfers from Guantánamo, continued detention following a judicial finding of unlawful detention, particularly in excess of several months after the ruling, defeats the purpose of such a review and thereby violates the prohibition of arbitrary detention.254 176. A number of other challenges for detainees appear in relation to habeas corpus petitions. Since the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision in Al Adahi v. Obama in 2010, questions have been raised as to whether this remedy is truly available due to the low standard of proof for the government and to the deference that district courts give to the US government’s reasons for detention.255 Furthermore, as detainees are associated with terrorism by virtue of their 250 United States Supreme Court, Jamal Kiyemba et al. v. Barack H. Obama, Case Nos. 08-1234, 20 October 2009, <http://scholar.google.pl/scholar_case?case=3060628020692206265&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=PLiu VLSzJcPdauC1gZgC&ved=0CB4QgAMoADAA>; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Jamal Kiyemba v. Barack Obama, Case Nos. 08-5424, 08-5425, 08-5426, 08, 5427, 08-5428, 08-5429, 28 May 2010, <http://scholar.google.pl/scholar_case?case=8032365351883273404&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=1Liu VPvADtDlaLubgKAJ&ved=0CB4QgAMoADAA>; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kiyemba v. Obama, 18 February 2009, op. cit., note 157; Hafetz, “Calling the Government to Account”, op. cit., note 159, pp. 3036; ODIHR interview with the American Civil Liberties Union, 24 February 2014, op. cit., note 82: interlocutors told ODIHR that even if a detainee wins his habeas petition, the government may still claim that he should not be transferred out of Guantánamo back to his own country due to security conditions or risks of torture. 251 UN HRC, Chambala v. Zambia, op. cit., note 114, para. 7.3. 252 See Part 3-II-B of this report for additional information. Andy Worthington, “Guantánamo Habeas Results: The Definitive List”, andyworthington.co.uk, February 2014, <http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/Guantanamo-habeas-results-the-definitivelist/>; Mark Denbeaux, Jonathan Hafetz et al., “No Hearing Habeas: DC Circuit Restricts Meaningful Review”, Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 2145554, 1 May 2012, p. 5, <http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/policyresearch/upload/hearing-habeas.pdf>; “The Guantánamo Docket”, The New York Times website, op. cit., note 88. 253 The United States cannot currently transfer detainees to the United States due to the transfer restrictions in the NDAA as discussed further in Part 3 of this report. 254 UN HRC, Chambala v. Zambia, op. cit., note 114, para. 7.3; ADRDM, Art. XXV; UN HRC, General Comment No. 35, op. cit., note 92, para. 41. 255 UN CAT, Concluding observations on the combined third to fifth periodic reports of the United States of America, op. cit., note 107, para. 14: “the Committee is concerned at reports that indicate that federal courts have rejected a significant number of habeas corpus petitions”; Denbeaux, Hafetz et al., “No Hearing Habeas”, op. cit., note 252, pp. 4, 11; Hafetz, “Calling the Government to Account”, op. cit., note 159, p. 27; ODIHR interview with the Center for Constitutional Rights, 24 February 2014: interlocutors explained that the burden of proof is much lower than in regular civil cases, and that all evidence, including hearsay and coerced evidence, is admissible. As long as the government presents some evidence they win the case; ODIHR interview with Matthew O’Hara, 14 March 2014: O’Hara stated that he and other counsel came to the conclusion that no detainee in Guantánamo can ever win a habeas corpus case based on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s view of the law; indeed, no detainee could obtain a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the District of Columbia and then prevail in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when the government appeals. The standard was created so that whatever the executive says will be accepted, no matter the source; ODIHR interview with Brent Rushforth, op. cit., note 207: Rushforth said that many successful trial court decisions have been reversed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has set the bar of standard of evidence so low for the government that it is 72