E/CN.4/2006/120 page 44 continuing armed conflict against Al Qaida, that the law of war applies to the conduct of that war and related detention operations, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by its express terms, applies only to ‘individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction’. (ICCPR article 2 (1)). The Report’s legal analysis rests on the flawed position that the ICCPR applies to Guantánamo detainees because the United States ‘is not currently engaged in an international armed conflict between two Parties to the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions’. This, of course, leads to a manifestly absurd result; that is, during an ongoing armed conflict, unlawful combatants receive more procedural rights than would lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Numerous other discussions in the Unedited Report are similarly flawed. The United States is a country of laws with an open system of constitutional government by checks and balances, and an independent judiciary and press. These issues are fully and publicly debated and litigated in the United States. To preserve the objectivity and authority of their own Report, the Special Rapporteurs should review and present objective and comprehensive material on all sides of an issue before stating their own conclusions. Instead, the Special Rapporteurs appear to have reached their own conclusions and then presented an advocate’s brief in support of them. In the process they have relied on international human rights instruments, declarations, standards, or general comments of treaty bodies without serious analysis of whether the instruments by their terms apply extraterritorially; whether the United States is a State Party - or has filed reservations or understandings - to the instrument; whether the instrument, declaration, standard or general comment is legally binding or not; or whether the provisions cited have the meaning ascribed to them in the Unedited Report. This is not the basis on which international human rights mechanisms should act. The Special Rapporteurs have not provided a meaningful opportunity to the United States to consult on the draft report or to rebut factual and legal assertions and conclusions with which we fundamentally disagree. The United States reserves the opportunity to reply in full to the final Report, but in the meantime requests that this letter be attached to the Report as an interim reply. Regards,” (Signed): Kevin Edward Moley Ambassador Permanent Representative of the United States of America -----