right to have the witnesses against them cross-examined. The two parallel justice systems are the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government, and a slightly streamlined justice system named the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for people under military jurisdiction. People undergoing a military court martial are entitled to the same basic rights as those in the civilian justice system. The Guantanamo military trials under the 2006 MCA do not operate according to either system of justice. The differences include: Unlike civilian courts, only two-thirds of the jury needs to agree in order to convict someone under the military commission rules. This includes charges such as supporting terrorism, attempted murder, and murder. The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence which the accused have no opportunity to see or refute. It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act. But, legally, the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense in 2006. The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission. The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can use only military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance. Because the accused are charged as unlawful combatants (a certain category of people who are not classified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions), then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in March 2002 that an acquittal on all charges by the commission is no guarantee of a release. International International human rights law prohibits trying non-military personnel in military tribunals. The United States has also never ratified the International Criminal Court statute, and withdrew its original signature of accession when it feared repercussions of the Iraq War. Much like the military commissions, the International Criminal Court (ICC) trial procedures call for: A majority of the three judges present, as triers of fact, may reach a decision, which must include a full and reasoned statement. However, and unlike the U.S. Military Commission, those are judges and not mere military officers. Additionally, the ICC statute requires the judges to be of a high level of competence in criminal law and the necessary