adversely impact their relationship with their defence team, but these allegations are also particularly concerning when viewed in combination with reported attempts to infiltrate defence teams and several other allegations of breaches of the confidentiality of attorneyclient communications described above. 407. International standards require that defence counsel be granted access to documents and other evidence to prepare their case.1069 International bodies and experts have for example specified that accused persons should not be convicted on the basis of evidence to which they or their attorney did not have full access to.1070 In this regard, ODIHR welcomes the inclusion in the MCA 2009 of a provision stating that all of the information admitted into evidence at trial under any rule is to be provided to the defendant.1071 It also welcomes the interpretation of this provision by the military judge in the Al-Nashiri case, clarifying that “every piece of information, no matter what the classification, admitted into evidence against Mr. al-Nashiri will be provided to him and his team of defense attorneys”.1072 In addition, it notes US assurances that the government has taken extensive efforts to declassify relevant documents.1073 408. However, ODIHR wishes to reiterate that defence counsel’s access to documents and other evidence also includes material establishing a defendant’s innocence as well as any other evidence which may assist the defence, such as indications of a coerced confession or information that may be relevant to sentencing.1074 On this point, ODIHR shares concerns raised by the IACHR that, in military commission proceedings, the obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to a finding of guilt is limited to “any evidence that reasonably tends to (…) negate the guilt of the accused (…) or reduce [his] degree of guilt”.1075 Similarly, it is also concerned that the burden to demonstrate the discoverability of evidence is on the defence, even though they may not be aware of the existence of such evidence.1076 409. With regard to the discovery of classified information, the MCA 2009 provides for circumstances where the government may delete or withhold specified portions of the classified information from the defence, substitute a summary of the information or a war court linguist”, Miami Herald website, 9 February 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nationworld/world/americas/guantanamo/article9600110.html#storylink=cpy>; Carol Rosenberg, “Pentagon: 9/11 defense team linguist was CIA asset”, Miami Herald website, 10 February 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nationworld/world/americas/guantanamo/article9705209.html>. 1069 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 33. See, also, OSCE “Brussels Declaration on Criminal Justice Systems”, op. cit., note 550. 1070 UN HRC, Concluding Observations, Canada, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, op. cit., note 965, para. 13; UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Report to the General Assembly, A/64/181, op. cit., note 954, para. 41. 1071 MCA 2009, § 949p-1(b); MCRE, Rule 505(a)(2). See, also, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Martin Scheinin, Report to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/16/51/Add.1, 14 February 2010, para. 213, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.51.Add.1_EFSonly.pdf>. 1072 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 181I, “Order – Defense Motion to Dismiss Capital Referral of All Charges Where the Defendant Has Not Been, And Will Not Be, Granted Access to Classified Evidence Presented to the Commission as Required by Due Process and the Eighth Amendment”, 9 December 2014. 1073 US comments to the draft report. 1074 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648. 1075 MCA 2009, § 949j (b), IACHR, “Towards the Closure of Guantanamo”, op. cit., note 245, para. 246. 1076 MCA 2009, § 949j (b), IACHR, “Towards the Closure of Guantanamo”, ibid. 181