56. The remote location of the courtroom presents a serious obstacle to the public character of the military commissions. The prohibition of the public to observe the proceedings from the actual courtroom, coupled with entirely closed sessions and a 40-second delay of the audio-feed of the proceedings are further serious constraints to the public nature of the proceedings. The broadcasting of the proceedings in various locations in the US, offered to a limited number of observers with the same 40-second delay, is a positive development but cannot, by itself, sufficiently meet the requirement of trials’ publicity as defined under the ICCPR, OSCE commitments and international humanitarian law. 57. The 40-second delay of the audio-feed has in practice not always been necessary and strictly proportionate to protect national security. Such delay may in fact have been used to render the proceedings “presumptively closed” and withhold information on the alleged mistreatment of detainees from the public, thus giving rise to concern over violations of the right to a public trial. 58. Presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court is a fundamental element of fair trial standards and is protected under international human rights law, OSCE commitments and international humanitarian law. Several safeguards protect the presumption of innocence in the military commissions proceedings, such as the dismissal requirement for potentially biased jurors. However, the length of pre-trial detention and the status of alien “unprivileged enemy belligerent” conferred to detainees before the proceedings likely violate international standards on the right to be presumed innocent. Senior government officials’ public statements inferring the defendants’ guilt, including in favour of the imposition of the death penalty in some cases, also violate this right. 59. Right to be tried without undue delay. Notwithstanding the complexity of the cases before the military commissions, the right to be tried without undue delay has likely been violated in a number of cases, including the Al-Nashiri and Mohammad et al. cases. This right, as recognized under international human rights and humanitarian law and contained in OSCE commitments, applies from the first official charges until the final judgment on appeal. ODIHR is gravely concerned that the US government has intentionally deprived the Guantánamo detainees of this right by excluding the applicability of certain speedy trial rights to cases before the military commissions. The lack of longstanding established procedures and precedent of the military commissions and the hindrances to holding regular hearings due to the remote location of Guantánamo are examples of US government actions that have contributed to the slow path of the proceedings. ODIHR is not aware of particular conduct of the defendants that had led to significant delays. Moreover, lengthy detention, including of 12-13 years in some cases, is likely a violation of the right to liberty and security which applies to pre-trial detention and provides individuals arrested or detained for criminal charges with the right to be tried within a reasonable time or released. 60. Right to legal counsel of one’s choice, to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence, and to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses. The right to prompt access of accused persons to counsel of their choice before and during their trial 18