A/HRC/4/25 page 16 opposing the Government’s position that Guantánamo does not lie within the territory of the United States and that persons held there are therefore not “entitled to the privilege of litigating in United States courts”.14 49. The provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law are complementary. The International Court of Justice has ruled that “the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be found in article 4 of the Covenant”. The Court also held that “some rights may be exclusively matters of international humanitarian law; others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may be matters of both these branches of international law”.15 The provisions of international humanitarian law - which are basically the same as those of article 14 of the Covenant - lay down minimum requirements relating to the right to due process of law which cannot be derogated from. Under the Geneva Conventions and the protocols to them, the right to a fair trial and the right to due process are non-derogable, and their violation represents a grave breach of the Conventions.16 The following are by and large the essential components of the right to due process:17 (a) the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest; (b) the right to the necessary means of defence; (c) the right to be present during the trial; (d) the presumption of innocence; (e) the right to remain silent; (f) the right to an independent and impartial tribunal; (g) the right to appeal; (h) the non-retroactivity of criminal laws; (j) the right to present witnesses; (k) the principle of non bis in idem; (l) the right to have the lawyer of one’s choosing; (m) the right to legal aid; (n) the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly. If such safeguards are provided during wartime,18 there can be no justification for disregarding them during peacetime. 50. In addition to the complementarity of the two branches of international law, the non-derogable nature of the right to a fair trial arises from the obligation States have to observe and guarantee the rights recognized in the treaties and to offer the possibility of an effective remedy in the event of a violation, as provided for under article 2, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although this is not one of the non-derogable articles mentioned in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, it is a treaty obligation inherent in the Covenant that must be observed at all times. 14 United States Submissions to the Supreme Court in Shafiq Rasul et al. v. George W. Bush et al., “Brief for the respondents in opposition”, October 2003, p. 18. 15 “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 106. 16 Geneva Convention III, art. 130, and Geneva Convention IV, art. 147. 17 See Protocol I, art. 75, and Protocol II, art. 6. 18 Geneva Convention III, arts. 82-108; Geneva Convention IV, arts. 43, 65, 67, 71-76, 78, 117 and 126; Additional Protocol I, art. 75; Additional Protocol II, art. 6.