States, including Fort Meade, a US military base in Maryland.853 This CCTV feed is broadcasted with the same 40-second delay.854 357. Efforts to accommodate the level of public interest by broadcasting the proceedings in the United States constitute a positive development. However, such broadcasting cannot, by itself and in the present conditions involving a 40-second delay of the audio-feed, sufficiently meet the requirement of publicity of trials. 358. ODIHR takes note of the military judge’s conclusion that the 40-second delay is “the least disruptive method of both insuring the continued protection of classified information while providing the maximum in public transparency”.855 However, it is of concern that this delay may have in fact rendered the proceedings “presumptively closed by withholding from the public, media, and observers, at the press of a button any access to detainees’ personal accounts of their detention and mistreatment”.856 While considerations of national security may justify restrictions to the right to a public hearing, any such restriction is to remain strictly proportionate to its aim. In this regard, ODIHR is troubled by reports of incidents where the audio transmission of non-classified information was unduly suspended,857 and where a third party outside the courtroom cut off the audio-feed of the proceedings without the judge’s knowledge and approval, revealing the existence of an 853 According to an order of December 2014, military commission proceedings are transmitted via CCTV to Fort Meade, Maryland, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Fort Hamilton, New York and Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst, New Jersey. However, several facilities are not available to the general public, including media and NGO representatives, but are restricted to relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks as well as first responders. Media and NGO representatives can watch the proceedings from Fort Meade, Maryland. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 007F, “Order – To Amend the Commission’s Order For Additional Public Access to Open Proceedings Of This Military Commission Via ClosedCircuit Television Transmission To Remote Locations”, 16 December 2014, pp. 1-2. See, also, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 007, op. cit., note 845, pp. 1-4; “Guantanamo Bay Media Invitation Announced”, United States Department of Defense website, 14 October 2011, op. cit., note 845; “Military Commissions Media Invitation Announced”, United States Department of Defense website, 26 September 2012, op. cit., note 845; Donna Miles, “Pretrial Hearings Kick Off for 9/11 Defendants”, United States Department of Defense website, 15 October 2012, <http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118219>; Jane Sutton, “Defense wants 9/11 trial televised globally from Guantanamo”, Reuters website, 19 October 2012, <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/us-usa-guantanamoidUSBRE89I19620121020>. 854 Karen Parrish, “Chief Prosecutor Outlines Military Commissions Process”, United States Department of Defense website, 8 November 2011, <http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66011>; Charlie Savage, “Defendants in Sept. 11 Case Cooperate as Proceedings Resume at Guantánamo”, The New York Times website, 15 October 2012, <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/sept-11-terrorism-case-resumes-smoothly-at-guantanamo.html?_r=0>; Keith Gerver, “Coverage of al-Nashiri’s Arraignment���, Lawfare website, 9 November 2011, <http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/11/coverageof-al-nashiris-arraignment-2/>. 855 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 013DDD, “Second Amended Protective Order #1”, op. cit., note 851, para. 8.a.(3)(a); United States Military Commission, United States of America v. AlNashiri, AE 013M, “Amended Protective Order #1”, op. cit., note 851, para. 47.c(i). 856 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Motion of the American Civil Liberties Union for Public Access to Proceedings and Records”, op. cit., note 813, p. 2. 857 “This is not the first time the suspension of the broadcast has been initiated. It is also not the first time the military judge ruled the evidence should have been discussed in open court”. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of motions hearing dated 31/01/2013 from 9:01 AM to 09:22 AM”, op. cit., note 816, p. 1720-1721. See, also, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 013H, “Reply of the American Civil Liberties Union to the Government’s Response to the Motion for Public Access to Proceedings and Records”, 23 May 2012, p. 11; Jane Sutton and Josh Meyer, “Insight: At Guantanamo tribunals, don’t mention the ‘T’ word”, Reuters website, 20 August 2012, <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/20/us-guantanamo-tribunalsidUSBRE87J03U20120820>. 156