officials have also expressed a clear desire for the imposition of the death penalty for particular defendants. The then-US Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, said that the 9/11 suspects “would be on death row as we speak” if the case had been tried in federal court.884 Public authorities, however, are under a duty not to prejudge the outcome of any criminal trial as a violation of the presumption of innocence occurs where public officials publically infer the guilt of the accused or advocate for the death penalty.885 Thus, the public statements made by US authorities violate international standards on the right to be presumed innocent. d. Recommendations • • • To ensure that any proceedings against Guantánamo detainees meet international standards on the presumption of innocence, including regarding the length of pre-trial detention which should not be indicative of guilt. To take effective steps to ensure that all public officials refrain from making any statements that prejudge or otherwise prejudice the outcome of any trials of Guantánamo detainees; To provide an effective remedy where a defendant’s right to be presumed innocent has been violated. C. RIGHT TO BE TRIED WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY a. International Standards 369. Article 14(3)(c) of the ICCPR stipulates that the right “to be tried without undue delay” is a fundamental guarantee in any determination of a criminal charge against the accused.886 Similar guarantees are provided by other international treaties and standards887 and by OSCE commitments.888 The primary purpose of this right is to “avoid keeping persons too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate”; to minimize deprivation of liberty when the accused is held in detention; and to serve the interests of justice.889 370. The right to be tried without undue delay is engaged from the time the accused is formally charged until the final judgment on appeal.890 All stages must occur “without undue Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 031, ibid.; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Al-Nashiri, AE 197, ibid. 884 See, for instance: Evan Perez, “Holder: ‘I was right’ on KSM Trial”, CNN website, 4 November 2013, <http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/04/holder-i-was-right-on-ksm-trial/>: Holder said “the defendants would be on death row as we speak”; “Holder Speaks Out on Snowden, Drone Policy, Softening Sentences”, NPR website, 11 March 2014, <http://www.npr.org/2014/03/11/288727200/holder-speaks-out-on-snowden-drone-policy-softening-sentences>: “Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and his confederates would be on death row”. 885 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 30; UN HRC, Mwamba v. Zambia, op. cit., note 864, para. 6.5; UN HRC, Francisco Juan Larrañaga v. The Philippines, op. cit., note 865, para. 7.4. 886 ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(c). 887 ADRDM, Art. XXV; Decaux Principles, op. cit., note 647, Principle 15. See, also, ACHR, Art. 8(1); “Body of Principles”, op. cit., note 89, Principle 38. 888 See, for instance, OSCE Vienna Document, op. cit., note 90, para. 13.9, which provides that participating States will “effectively apply…the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” 889 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 35. 890 Ibid. 161