the Mohammad et al. case has remained effectively stalled due to the need for further inquiry into the potential conflict of interest created by these actions.916 While this issue remains unresolved, further delays have occurred since February 2015, when a pre-trial hearing ended after only a few hours, following the revelation that an interpreter newly and temporarily assigned to the defence formerly worked in a CIA secret detention facility where several accused were detained.917 Since then, pre-trial hearings in the case have been repeatedly cancelled.918 380. ODIHR is not aware of conduct by the co-defendants that has led to significant delays in trial. Al Shibh has at times disrupted pre-trial hearings, but this conduct led the commission to question his mental competence to stand trial.919 Taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the actions of US authorities,920 ODIHR is gravely concerned by the fact that it has been more than four years since the current charges were sworn, that more than seven years have passed since the initial charges were sworn and that setting a trial date is currently beyond “the realm of possibility”.921 Trials involving serious criminal charges where the accused is held in detention are to be tried in as expeditious a manner as possible.922 ODIHR is therefore of the view that these delays are in contravention of the right to be tried without undue delay. 381. Similarly, Al-Nashiri was apprehended in 2002, but he was not initially charged until June 2008.923 Charges were dismissed without prejudice in November 2009 and his current charges were sworn in September 2011.924 Like the Mohammad et al. case, Al-Nashiri’s case is also affected by the remote location of Guantánamo and the lack of longstanding established procedures and precedent of the military commissions. Additionally, pre-trial hearings have been delayed by, inter alia, concerns over government monitoring and interference,925 allegations of unlawful influence,926 Al-Nashiri’s treatment in the CIA RDI the Defense Security Officer to sign a nondisclosure agreement and a classified information nondisclosure agreement. See, for instance: United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 292QQ, “Amended Order Emergency Joint Defense Motion to Abate Proceedings and Inquire into Existence of Conflict of Interest Burdening Counsel’s Representation of Accused”, 16 December 2014, pp. 1, 11-12. 916 Judge Pohl determined that a conflict of interest may only be present in al Shibh’s case. Ibid., pp. 31-32. 917 See, for example, Daphne Eviatar, “Stalled 9/11 Case is Another Reason to Close Guantanamo”, The World Post website, 13 August 2015, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/stalled-911-case-is-anoth_b_7985120.html>; Daphne Eviatar, “Guantanamo Military Commissions Stall Again: Time to Move On”, The World Post website, 6 April 2015, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/guantanamo-military-commi_b_7012000.html>; John Knefel, “FBI infiltrates defense team, causes new delay in 9/11 trial”, Al Jazeera America, 5 June 2015, <http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2015/6/5/fbi-infiltrates-defense-team-causes-new-delay-in-911-trial.html>. 918 Ibid. 919 Al Shibh has been removed from the courtroom for outbursts on five separate occasions. United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 152J, op. cit., note 437, p. 3. 920 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, para. 35. 921 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 175F, “Order - Government Motion for a Trial Scheduling Order and Notice of Status of Discovery”, 12 December 2014. 922 UN HRC, Francis et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, op. cit., note 892, para. 5.4. 923 Senate Study on the CIA RDI Programme, Executive Summary, op. cit., note 171, p. 458; United States Military Commission, “Charge Sheet: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri”, 30 June 2008. 924 United States Military Commission, “Direction of the Convening Authority”, 20 November 2009; United States Military Commission, “Charge Sheet: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri”, 15 September 2011, op. cit., note 641. 925 For instance, pre-trial proceedings were side-tracked to hear motions on government interference after third-party monitoring and FBI interference occurred in the Mohammad et al. case. Among others, there has also been reports of interference with the attorney-client privilege, please see Part 2-II-D of this report for more information. Donna Miles, “Hearing for Accused USS Cole Bomber Continues, Despite Delays”, United States Department of Defense website, 4 February 2013, 165