E/CN.4/2006/120 page 30 26 See US District Court for the district of Columbia, decision of 31 January 2005 In re Guantánamo Detainees Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, at 468-478. 27 Response of the United States of America dated 21 October 2005, to Inquiry of the UNCHR Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005, Pertaining to Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, p. 47. 28 The CSRT and ARB rules do not provide detainees with the right to receive legal assistance, but provide instead for a “personal representative” with no legal training required and no duty of confidentiality whatsoever. See also US District Court for the district of Columbia, decision of 31 January 2005 In re Guantánamo Detainees Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, at 468-478, where the District Court says (at 472) that “there is no confidential relationship between the detainee and the Personal Representative, and the Personal Representative is obligated to disclose to the tribunal any relevant inculpatory information he obtains from the detainee. Id. Consequently, there is inherent risk and little corresponding benefit should the detainee decide to use the services of the Personal Representative”. 29 See supra note 2. 30 According to the information available, it appears that already in 2003 the United States Department of Defense determined that the 15 Uighurs did not present a threat to the security of the United States. In 2004, the Department of Defense determined that the 15 Uighurs do not have any intelligence value for the United States and should be released. According to the information provided by US lawyers acting on behalf of the Uighur detainees, in March 2005 the CSRT decided that six of the Uighurs were not “enemy combatants”. The Response of the United States to the Special Rapporteurs states that “arrangements are underway” for the release of 15 detainees determined not to be “enemy combatants” by the CSRT by March 2005 (Response of the United States of America dated 21 October 2005, to Inquiry of the UNCHR Special Rapporteurs dated 8 August 2005, Pertaining to Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, p. 47), which could be an indication that in fact all 15 Uighurs have been found by the CSRT not to be “enemy combatants”. However, the United States neither intend to return the 15 prisoners to the People’s Republic of China, where it is feared that they would be at risk of being killed, tortured or ill-treated, nor allow them to settle in the US. The existence of prisoners whose release poses problems because they reasonably fear repatriation is acknowledged in the Response of the United States (p. 50). In the habeas corpus case brought by two of the Uighurs before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Qassim v. Bush), the United States Government first failed to inform the court and the detainees’ attorneys that the habeas corpus petitioners had been found not to be “enemy combatants”. It then argued that it is continuing their detention on the basis of “the Executive’s necessary power to wind up war time detentions in an orderly fashion” (Qassim v. Bush, Opinion Memorandum of 22 December 2005, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34618, para. 4). The District Court concluded that “[t]he detention of these petitioners has by now become indefinite. This indefinite imprisonment at Guantánamo Bay is unlawful.” (Ibid., para. 8.) Despite this finding, the District Court concluded that it had no relief to offer, i.e. it could not order their release (ibid., para. 16). 31 Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006, Section 1005.