reiterate that privileged attorney-client communications should never take place within the hearing of law-enforcement officials.1045 Video-monitoring should not be used to circumvent the prohibition of audio-monitoring by reading documents and revealing the content of confidential attorney-client discussions. Instead, effective measures should be taken to ensure the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.1046 403. In recent years, the establishment and implementation of security procedures enabling military officials to search for and eliminate contraband has led to several allegations of seizures of confidential attorney-client materials and inspection of the content of attorneyclient written communications. ODIHR notes with concern two 2011 Memoranda which allegedly allowed military officials to review and read all written correspondence between co-defendants in the Mohammad et al. case and their attorneys.1047 The then-Chief Defense Counsel prohibited defence attorneys from using the legal mail system for privileged communications, in order to ensure that they would not violate their ethical obligations by complying with the newly established rules.1048 As a result, defence counsel in the Mohammad et al. case reported being unable to exchange confidential written communications with their clients for two years.1049 Seizures of privileged mail in defendants’ cells also allegedly occurred on multiple occasions in the Mohammad et al. and Al-Nashiri cases,1050 to the extent that defence counsel characterized them as “systematic”.1051 The materials seized are said to have included attorney-client notes and “confidential letters delineating trial and motion strategy”.1052 ODIHR is concerned by these allegations of acts that would constitute an invasion of privileged attorney-client communications. The inspection of detainees’ legal papers to ensure that they do not contain contraband should not lead to such invasions. Legal files and documents should at 1045 “Body of Principles”, op. cit., note 89, Principle 18; “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”, op. cit., note 280, Rule 93; “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, op. cit., note 939, Principle 8; UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Report to the General Assembly, A/63/223, op. cit., note 55, para. 39. 1046 UN CAT, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture, Jordan, CAT/C/JOR/CO/2, op. cit., note 130, para. 12. 1047 JTF-GTMO Commander, “Memorandum For See Distribution - Order Governing Logistics of Defense Counsel Access to Detainees Involved in Military Commissions”, 27 December 2011, <https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/gitmo_orders_20111227.pdf >; Jamie Reese, “Guantanamo Chief Defense Counsel Refuses to Allow Review of Attorney Letters”, Jurist website, 12 January 2012, <http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/01/guantanamo-chiefdefense-counsel-refuses-to-allow-review-of-attorney-letters.php>; ODIHR interview with Marine Corps Major Derek Poteet, Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander James Hatcher and Tim Jon Semmerling, 3 June 2014. 1048 Chief Defense Counsel Colonel Jeffrey P. Colwell, “Effective immediately: ethics instruction against execution of either JTFGTMO-CDR order acknowledgment, and against allowing legal mail to be subjected to review by the privilege team”, 8 January 2012, <http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/colwell_email_on_attorney-client_communication_monitoring_at_guantanamo.pdf>; Reese, “Guantanamo Chief Defense Counsel Refuses to Allow Review of Attorney Letters”, ibid. 1049 ODIHR interview with Marine Corps Major Derek Poteet, Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander James Hatcher and Tim Jon Semmerling, op. cit., note 1047. See, also, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 008 (MAH), op. cit., note 845, pp. 8-9; Bennett, “Another Order in the 9/11 Case, This One On Legal Mail”, op. cit., note 1036. ODIHR notes that a written communication management order was adopted in the case in November 2013, and takes note of US assurances that the prosecution is not involved in reviewing any detainee’s legal mail, does not communicate with JTFGTMO personnel concerning the review of materials, and is not privy to the information contained in the legal mail. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 018U “Order - Privileged Written Communications”, 6 November 2013. US comments to the draft report. 1050 “Requests to Improve the Conditions of Confinement in Guantánamo”, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, op. cit., note 424, p. 5; ODIHR interview with Navy Commander Brian Mizer, op. cit., note 614; ODIHR interview with Cheryl Bormann, Air Force Captain Michael Schwartz, Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander James Hatcher and Tim Jon Semmerling, op. cit., note 725. 1051 “Requests to Improve the Conditions of Confinement in Guantánamo”, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, ibid. 1052 Ibid. 178