programme,927 and by other delays attributed to classified discovery.928 In April 2015, the proceedings were abated pending the resolution by the CMCR of two interlocutory government appeals of military commission rulings (including the one dismissing the Limburg-related charges), and a defence challenge of the CMCR’s composition in parallel legal proceedings before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.929 Furthermore, as in all current military commissions’ cases, there have been limited pre-trial hearings. In 2014, for all the cases before the military commissions, only 33 calendar days of pre-trial hearings were conducted and lasted a total of 107 hours and 50 minutes (approximately 10.5 hours per month).930 It is not clear when his trial will commence.931 Given that initial charges were sworn seven years ago, the current charges were sworn four years ago and the proceedings remain in the pre-trial stage, ODIHR’s view is that the right to be tried without undue delay has been violated. 382. ODIHR notes that Article 9(3) of the ICCPR on arbitrary detention also provides that those apprehended or detained on a criminal charge be tried “within a reasonable time or (…) <http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119198>; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 272C, “Ruling - Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief: Inquiry into the Existence of a Conflict of Interest Burdening Counsel’s Representation of the Accused Based on Ongoing Executive Branch Investigations”, 22 August 2014; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 207, “Ruling on Defense Motion to Bar JTFGTMO from Interfering with the Accused’s Right to Receive Confidential Legal Mail and Access to Courts”, 10 February 2012. 926 The defence has submitted motions on unlawful influence. In one instance, the judge ruled that the defence had not met its burden. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 197B, “Order - Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Influence”, 28 March 2014. 927 These delays have included delays and denial of access to “meaningful discovery”, as well as the delays associated with the US government’s failure to promptly provide a declassified version of the full Senate Study to the defence. See, for instance, Charley Keys, “Guantanamo Detainee Lawyers Ask that Death Penalty Case be Dropped”, CNN website, 19 July 2011, <http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/19/guantanamo.detainee/index.html>; Wells Bennett, “5/28 Session #1: Getting the SSCI RDI Report – or Not”, Lawfare website, 28 May 2014, <http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/05/528-session-1-getting-thessci-rdi-report-or-not/>; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the motions hearing dated 5/28/2014 from 10:52 AM to 12:11 PM”, pp. 4360-4371; Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins, “Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins Remarks at Guantanamo Bay”, 13 December 2014, p. 2, <http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Statement-of-the-Chief-Prosecutor-13-December-2014-1.pdf>. 928 The Office of the Chief Defense Counsel explained that in most cases the defence is prohibited from knowing who the classification authority is. They are reportedly not given guidance or guides and may not contact the classification authority. See Part 2-II-D of this report for more information. ODIHR meeting with the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, op. cit., note 914. 929 The military judge granted the defence motion to abate military commission pre-trial hearings pending the resolution of the two interlocutory appeals. The interlocutory appeals before the CMCR were stayed pending the resolution of the defence challenge of the CMCR’s composition before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following the Court of Appeals’ ruling in June 2015, the proceedings before the CMCR were once again stayed while the United States “explores options for re-nomination and re-confirmation of the military judges as U.S.C.M.C.R. judges”. See, for example, Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins, “Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins Remarks at Guantanamo Bay”, 19 July 2015, pp. 45, <https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/272072414?access_key=key6hd1qM9CF6q6kugujS8T&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll>; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri, “On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to the United States Court of Military Commission Review”, Case No. 14-1203, 23 June 2015, <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14-1203-Judgment.pdf>. 930 In 2013, 34 days of hearings were held and, on average, these hearings lasted less than five hours on the record each day. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 343 (KSM, WBA, RBS, AAA), “Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Influence on Trial Judiciary”, p. 27, Attachment B, Vaughn A. Ary, Convening Authority and Director, Office of Military Commissions, “Executive Summary for the Deputy Secretary of Defense – Assessment of Office of Military Commissions”, 9 December 2014. 931 See, for instance, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 045KK, ���Order - 3rd Amended Litigation Schedule Order” 15 September 2014. 166