Amendment to detainees held at Guantánamo has not been determined by a domestic court.900 374. The MCA 2009 specifically excludes the applicability of speedy trial rights contained in the UCMJ and the rules of courts-martial to military commissions.901 Additional provisions in the RMC provide, subject to some exceptions, that an accused should be arraigned before the military commission within 30 days of the service of the charges and that the judge shall announce the assembly of the military commission within 120 days of the service of the charges.902 c. Findings and Analysis 375. Under the MCA 2009, the right to be tried without undue delay, as contained in the UCMJ, has been explicitly made inapplicable to military commissions.903 The specific removal of speedy trial rights creates the impression that the US government does not intend or does not believe that it is possible for military commissions’ proceedings to comply with speedy trial rights. This exclusion combined with the lengthy proceedings thus far, as discussed in more detail below, raise grave concerns that Guantánamo detainees have been intentionally deprived of their right to be tried without undue delay. 376. The multiple versions of military commissions between 2001 and 2009 have led to long delays, in some cases due to the withdrawal and refiling of charges, which explains some of the earlier delays involved in military commission proceedings. For instance, al Bahlul was initially charged in 2004 and, following the United States Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the original military commissions and the subsequent creation of the MCA 2006, the US government recharged al Bahlul in 2008904 and he was convicted in 2008.905 As of 31 August 2015, his case was still under appeal. Hence, it has been more than 11 years since al Bahlul was initially charged and more than seven years since he was recharged, but his trial has still not reached the point of final judgment on appeal. Additionally, Hamdan was initially charged in 2004,906 recharged in 2007907 and convicted in 2008,908 but the final decision on appeal, in which his conviction was vacated, was not 900 In the federal prosecution of former Guantánamo detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “there was no violation of Ghailani’s right under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment” of the US Constitution in spite of the fact that he “was held abroad for several years by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense while his indictment was pending”. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Case No. 11-320-CR, 24 October 2013. 901 MCA 2009, § 948(b)(d)(1)(A). 902 RMC, Rule 707(a). Exceptions to the prescribed time periods are set out in RMC, Rule 707(b)(4), which provides that new time periods run following the withdrawal or dismissal of charges, mistrials, government appeals, rehearings, continuances and for periods of hospitalization of the accused. 903 MCA 2009, § 948(b)(d)(1)(A); ODIHR meeting with the Department of Defense Office for the Convening Authority, op. cit., note 841. 904 United States Military Commission, “Charges”, 28 June 2004; United States Military Commission, “Charge Sheet: Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul”, 8 February 2008. 905 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. al Bahlul, AE 074, “Findings Worksheet”, op. cit., note 631. 906 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Case No. 04-1519, 8 November 2004, p. 3, <www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7456>. 907 United States Military Commission, “Charge Sheet: Salim Ahmed Hamdan”, 5 April 2007. 908 United States Military Commission, “Report of Result of Trial”, 7 August 2008. 163