right of the defendants to communicate with counsel of their choosing and impair their right to adequately prepare their defence.1037 402. Secondly, ODIHR is troubled by reports of violations of defendants’ right to communicate with their attorneys in full confidentiality.1038 For example, Colonel John Bogdan, thenCommander of the Joint Detention Group at Guantánamo acknowledged in February 2013 that several attorney-client meeting rooms contained hidden listening devices1039 and two cameras.1040 The ability of courtroom microphones to capture confidential conversations between attorneys and their clients, even when attorneys purposefully muted one of them, has also been of concern. ODIHR notes Judge Pohl’s conclusion in 2013 that “no monitoring has occurred for at least the prior two years” in meeting rooms.1041 US assurances that there are currently no listening devices in rooms used for attorney-client meetings,1042 that private conversations between counsel and their client in the courtroom remain private and are not recorded, transmitted or shared with anyone outside the privileged attorney-client relationship are welcome.1043 The policies prohibiting the use of the zoom feature of cameras during attorney-client meetings and in the courtroom (except under carefully controlled circumstances) are similarly welcome.1044 However, ODIHR is concerned that the disguised appearance of the listening devices and other repeated allegations of breaches of attorney-client privilege contribute to creating a climate of suspicion capable of hindering the attorney-client relationship. ODIHR indeed wishes to <http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/11/another-order-in-the-911-case-this-one-on-legal-mail/>; ODIHR interview with Cheryl Bormann, Air Force Captain Michael Schwartz, Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander James Hatcher and Tim Jon Semmerling, ibid.; ODIHR meeting with the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, ibid. 1037 See, also, UN Working Group on arbitrary detention, Tariq Aziz v. Iraq and United States of America, Opinion No. 33/2006, 17 November 2006, paras. 8, 19, <http://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/Document.aspx?id=2313&terms=(+tariq+aziz+)>: “8. Since then, Tariq Aziz has had sporadic meetings with his defence counsel (…). These meetings take place under circumstances which render the effective preparation of a defence case very difficult. The defence counsel is not allowed to see his client at dates he requests. Instead, he is informed at very short notice (never more than a day) by the United States authorities of a meeting date. (…) 19. (…) Also the right to ‘communicate with counsel of his own choosing’ enshrined in article 14(3)(b) ICCPR is seriously undermined, as the meetings take place at unforeseeable intervals as dictated by the United States authorities (…)”; UN HRC, Hicks v. Australia, “Individual Communication”, op. cit., note 754, para. 214. 1038 ODIHR interview with Human Rights Watch, op. cit., note 821; ODIHR interview with the Center for Constitutional Rights, 5 August 2013. 1039 The hidden microphones are inside devices that look like smoke detectors. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 2/13/2013 from 10:28 AM to 12:02 PM”, p. 2203; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 2/12/2013 from 1:00 PM to 2:37 PM”, pp. 1984-1985; Denbeaux et al., “Spying on attorneys at GTMO”, op. cit., note 1032, p. 1. 1040 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 2/13/2013 from 10:28 AM to 12:02 PM”, ibid., pp. 2181-2182, 2203, 2227-2228, 2239-2240; Denbeaux et al., “Spying on attorneys at GTMO”, ibid., pp. 1-3. See, also, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 2/12/2013 from 1:00 PM to 2:37 PM”, ibid., pp. 1984, 1971-1972; Carol Rosenberg, “Attorney-client meeting room was bugged, Navy lawyer testifies at Guantánamo”, Miami Herald website, 12 February 2013, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news /nationworld/world/americas/guantanamo/article1947210.html>. 1041 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 149K, “Order - Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief: Determine the Extent of Past Monitoring at Camp Echo II and Order that No Future Monitoring Occur in JTF-GTMO Facilities”, 5 August 2013, p. 4. 1042 US comments to the draft report. 1043 Ibid. 1044 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 297 (AAA), “Defense Motion For Order that Cameras in Courtroom #2 Not Zoom in on Defense Materials”, 7 May 2014; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 297B (AAA), “Withdrawal of Defense Motion For Order that Cameras in Courtroom #2 Not Zoom in on Defense Materials”, 10 June 2014. 177