A/HRC/4/40 page 11 3. Government reactions to Opinions 11. The Government of the United States of America reacted to three Opinions of the Working Group, arguing that the Working Group had no mandate to consider situations governed by international humanitarian law. With regard to Opinion No. 44/2005 (United States of America) concerning the case of Mr. Abdul Jaber Al Kubaisi, in which the Working Group had stated that the detention of this person by the multinational force in Iraq (MNF-I) violated the provisions of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Government stated that, since the situation in Iraq was an armed conflict covered by international humanitarian law, the Working Group did not have a mandate to assess the validity of security internment in that country. It further argued that under the Geneva Conventions, a Detaining Power is able to use an administrative board to review and decide on challenges by protected persons on their detention. It was of the opinion that the Working Group had therefore erred in its assumption that security internees were entitled to initiate proceedings before a judicial court. Additionally, the Covenant had no application outside the territory of a Member State. It said that the multinational force was authorized under Security Council resolution 1546 to intern individuals “where necessary for imperative reasons of security”. Its mandate had been extended by the Council in its resolution 1637 (2005). Lastly, the Government pointed out that the multinational force had released Mr. Al Kubaisi in December 2005. 12. The Government reiterated this stance in relation to the Working Group’s Opinion No. 29/2006 (United States of America). It added that, as recently confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the law of armed conflicts governs the armed conflict with Al-Qaida. The Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to that conflict. Fourteen detainees had been transferred from classified locations to Department of Defense custody at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The Permanent Mission pointed out that the International Committee of the Red Cross had had access to these detainees at Guantánamo. 13. In connection with Opinion No. 46/2005 (Iraq/United States of America), the Government of the United States welcomed “the conclusion that the Working Group will not take a position on the alleged arbitrariness of the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Saddam Hussein during the period of international armed conflict”. 14. In relation to these observations, the Working Group notes that in section IV of its last report (E/CN.4/2006/7) it had pointed out that “the application of international humanitarian law ... does not exclude the application of international human rights law”. As explained in the joint report by five special rapporteurs on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay (E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 83), international armed conflicts, including situations of occupation, imply the full applicability of relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and of international human rights law, with the exception of guarantees derogated from, provided such derogations have been declared in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the State party. The United States has not notified any official derogation from the Covenant. The Working Group’s methods of work are based on the rationale that the Geneva Conventions applying to international armed conflicts as a lex specialis provide for specific legal grounds for deprivation of liberty, providing ICRC with the right of access to prisoners of war, civilian internees and security or common law internees.