looking at “all of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement, including the degree to which the statement is corroborated, its indicia of reliability within the statement itself, and whether the will of the declarant was overborne” determines that the “(I) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (II) the statement is probative (…); (III) direct testimony of the witness is not available as a practical matter (…); and (IV) the general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence”.1018 Furthermore, the MCRE prescribe that “hearsay within hearsay is not excluded”.1019 Disclosure of information relating to hearsay evidence is subject to the restrictions on disclosure of classified information.1020 c. Findings and analysis 399. All seven detainees currently facing military commission proceedings are “high-value detainees” who were detained and interrogated in incommunicado detention as part of the CIA RDI programme.1021 As a result, they were denied access to counsel for periods ranging from at least several months to several years.1022 Such denial of access to legal representation violates Article 14(3) of the ICCPR.1023 While the Geneva Conventions do not set a strict time limit for access to a lawyer following the initial deprivation of liberty,1024 it has been recognized that defendants have a right to legal counsel before trial.1025 Further, international humanitarian law prescribes that, before and during his trial, a defendant should have all necessary means to prepare his defence.1026 Therefore, where the delay in legal representation impeded the ability of the accused to prepare his defence, it also violated international humanitarian law. 400. The MCA 2009 and its implementing regulation provide for a defendant’s right to choose the military defence counsel who will represent him at the costs of the government.1027 While this choice is reportedly very limited in practice,1028 a defendant may also choose to 1018 Ibid. MCRE, Rule 805. 1020 MCRE, Rule 803(c). 1021 ICRC Report, op. cit., note 182, p. 5; Senate Study on the CIA RDI Programme, Executive Summary, op. cit., note 171, pp. 458-461; Gerry J. Gilmore, “High-Value Detainees Moved to Gitmo; Bush Proposes Detainee Legislation”, United States Department of Defense website, 6 September 2006, <http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=721>; “Defense Department Takes Custody of a High-Value Detainee”, United States Department of Defense website, 27 April 2007, op. cit., note 181; ECtHR, Al Nashiri v. Poland, op. cit., note 172, para. 398. 1022 ICRC Report, ibid., pp. 7-8; Senate Study on the CIA RDI Programme, Executive Summary, ibid., pp. 458-461. 1023 See, also, UN HRC, Luciano Weinberger v. Uruguay, Communication No. 28/1978, 29 October 1980, paras. 12, 16, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f11%2fD%2f28%2f1978&La ng=en>; UN HRC, Leopoldo Buffo Carballal v. Uruguay, Communication No. 33/1978, 27 March 1981, paras. 9, 13, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f12%2fD%2f33%2f1978&La ng=en>; UN HRC, Paul Anthony Kelly v. Jamaica, Communication No. 537/1993, 17 July 1996, para. 9.2, <http://www.un.org /en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=CCPR/C/57/D/537/1993>; UN HRC, Adolfo Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay, Communication No. 43/1979, 21 July 1983, paras. 13.3, 14, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno= CCPR%2fC%2f19%2fD%2f43%2f1979&Lang=en>. 1024 “Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 100”, ICRC website, op. cit., note 643. 1025 Third Geneva Convention, Art. 105(3); Pejic, “The protective scope of Common Article 3”, op. cit., note 145, pp. 211-214. 1026 API, Art. 75(4)(a); Third Geneva Convention, Arts. 84, 99, 105; Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 72; Common Article 3(1)(d); ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simić, Miroslav Tadić, and Simo Zarić, op. cit., note 789, para. 678; “Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 100”, ICRC website, op. cit., note 643. 1027 MCA 2009, § 949c(b)(2); RMC, Rule 506(a) and (c)(1). 1028 “The (…) small pool of attorneys assigned to the defense office, coupled with the real potential for conflicts arising from an attorney representing more than one detainee renders the statutory language effectively meaningless”. Glazier, “Destined for an 1019 175