Pohl, the current Chief Trial Judge and commission judge in the Mohammad et al. case has raised analogous concerns. The defence in the Al-Nashiri case, to which he was previously detailed, for example argued that his continued employment, and thus financial interest, depends on his temporary duty status and provides no insurance that he will not be removed in the middle of a case or trial for ruling contrary to the interests of the government.827 350. ODIHR considers that the selection of military commission judges, either directly (in the case of Judge Pohl) or indirectly (for those judges detailed to a case by the Chief Trial Judge), by the Convening Authority, i.e. a person under the authority and the responsibility of the Department of Defense, combined with their lack of security of tenure, creates at least the appearance that the executive branch can exert influence over judicial decisions. Additionally, ODIHR takes note of concerns over Judge Pohl’s initial decision to detail himself to all three cases involving “high-value detainees”,828 including the two capital military commissions, which raised doubts as to his impartiality.829 351. ODIHR welcomes recent rulings regarding a Department of Defense regulation, adopted in January 2015, which required all military commission judges to move to Guantánamo for the duration of their assignment and to set aside their other duties.830 Defence attorneys in the Al-Nashiri and Mohammad et al. cases argued that this regulation constituted actual and apparent unlawful influence exerted on the trial judiciary831 as it was proposed by the Convening Authority itself, to allegedly accelerate the pace of the proceedings.832 The first ruling, in the Mohammad et al. case, concluded that the regulation and recommendation of the Convening Authority constituted at least the appearance of an unlawful attempt to 827 Ibid., pp. 8-9. On 17 July 2012, and subsequently on 20 June 2014, Judge Pohl denied the defence motion and renewed motion, respectively, for his recusal as military judge in the Al-Nashiri case. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 084O, “Ruling – Defense Renewed Motion for the Recusal of COL James Pohl as Judge of this Military Commission – Motion to Disqualify, or in the Alternative Requesting Recusal of, COL James L. Pohl as Military Judge in this Case”, 20 June 2014. 828 Judge Pohl is no longer detailed to all ongoing cases. Air Force Colonel Vance H. Spath is detailed to the Al-Nashiri case since July 2014. Navy Captain J. Kirk Waits is the military judge detailed to the case of Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 001, “Memorandum for Convening Authority, Office of the Military Commissions”, 28 September 2011; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 302, “Memorandum for Colonel Vance H. Spath, USAF”, 10 July 2014; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 001, “Memorandum for Convening Authority, Office of the Military Commissions”, 8 April 2012; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Khan, AE 001, “Memorandum for Convening Authority, Office of the Military Commissions”, 17 February 2012; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi, AE 002, “Arraignment Order”, 3 June 2014, para. 1. 829 See, for example, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 084, op. cit., note 826, pp. 1-2. 830 Judges assigned to the proceedings juggle the military commission cases with other work and commute to Guantánamo parttime. See, for example, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 343C, “Ruling – Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Influence on Trial Judiciary”, 25 February 2015; David Lerman, “Pentagon orders Guantánamo judges to stay there to pick up pace”, Miami Herald website, 9 January 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article5679231.html>. 831 See, for example, United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 343, “Defense Motion to Dismiss for Unlawful Influence on Trial Judiciary”, 30 January 2015, p. 1; Carol Rosenberg, “Pentagon scraps judges’ Guantánamo move order; 9/11 case unfrozen”, Miami Herald website, 27 February 2015, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article11334425.html>. 832 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 343C, op. cit., note 830, pp. 1-2. Defence attorneys argued that the Convening Authority itself has proposed this relocation order, assessing that “the status quo [did] not support the pace of litigation necessary to bring these cases to their just conclusion”. 152