independence of the U.S. review system. They feel abandoned by their own government after years of failing and refusing to act or assist them. Across the border in Pakistan, detainees’ families know little about their condition and nothing about their eventual fate. For years, families have been waiting for news, their lives also in limbo. They endure emotional, economic, and social burdens from the long absence of their loved ones, all worsened by the restrictions the U.S. military imposes on communication. Sons grow up never knowing their fathers. Mothers die without ever again seeing their sons. Wives strive to keep hope that their husbands will someday return. Neither the United States nor Pakistan provides families with any direct information regarding their relatives’ legal status, or the conditions under which they could ever be released. Families blame the Pakistani government for failing to provide them with urgently needed assistance and basic information—and for failing to defend the rights of their citizens in U.S. detention. Families also denounce the United States as hypocritical, questioning why it continues to detain their relatives in indefinite detention without charge or trial, while proclaiming to champion human rights and the rule of law. Critical to resolving the fate of these detainees are the repatriation negotiations between the U.S. and Pakistani governments. Much like Afghan detainees in the past, TCN cases are reviewed every six months not by a court but by an administrative, Detainee Review Board (DRB), staffed entirely by U.S. military personnel. Any recommendation for transfer or release by the DRB is only the first step, however. The receiving country and the United States must then complete what are often lengthy, bureaucratic negotiations over the terms of repatriation. Negotiations between the United States and Pakistan over detainees held at the DFIP have dragged on for years. At the center lie humane treatment and security assurances. They guarantee that any transferred detainee will be treated humanely by the Pakistani government, and that any potential future threat the United States perceives detainees to pose is sufficiently mitigated. The United States is under an obligation in international law, not to send an individual to a country where they are at a real risk of torture. To fully comply with this obligation, the United States must ensure that any humane treatment assurances sought from the Pakistani government effectively protect the detainee against a real risk of torture. More than mere promises, these should include concrete measures such as access to legal counsel, which will effectively address the record of torture and detainee abuse in Pakistan. The U.S. government is also seeking security assurances from Pakistan, to assuage fears detainees might return to or join hostilities against the United States. The U.S. government must ensure that the threat assessments are based on sufficient and credible evidence. It must avoid the reportedly overstated fears of recidivism that have characterized threat assessments of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Furthermore, due process flaws of the U.S. detention regime are particularly acute for TCN detainees. Limited witness participation at DRBs denies detainees the possibility to present an alternative narrative to the U.S. military’s evidence against them. In turn, this makes changing U.S. threat perceptions virtually impossible. It should also be recognized that Pakistan has an extensive legal framework and security apparatus. This can help address U.S. security concerns and reduce the risk the United States perceives detainees to pose. Finally, the risk a detainee is believed to pose 5