necessary to draft and file any defence pleading increased at least three- to fourfold due to IT issues.1060 405. Furthermore, ODIHR is highly concerned by revelations that FBI agents secretly questioned the defence security officer and linguist of al Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad’s defence teams, respectively, and attempted to enlist the former into a “relationship with the FBI”.1061 It notes the initial assumption that the questioning of the defence security officer was part of an investigation into wrongdoing of the defence teams themselves.1062 Months after the revelation, and while the investigation was said to have been closed, defence attorneys were still unaware of who had been investigated and why.1063 It is reasonable to assume that the fear of criminal prosecution hampered defence attorney’s ability to zealously and effectively represent their clients.1064 Accordingly, such FBI conduct not only compromised the confidentiality of attorney-client communications, but also constituted an undue interference with attorneys’ ability to perform their function.1065 In this regard, ODIHR wishes to reiterate that authorities should not hinder attorneys “from fulfilling their task effectively”1066 but rather ensure that they do not “suffer, or [are] threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics”.1067 406. In a similar vein, ODIHR is concerned by reports of February 2015 alleging that an interpreter newly and temporarily assigned to the defence in the Mohammad et al. case formerly worked in a CIA secret detention facility where at least two of accused were detained. This information came to light after one of the defendants, Ramzi Bin al Shibh, told the judge at the outset of a pre-trial hearing that he had recognized the interpreter, who was sitting next to him.1068 Not only could this negatively affect the defendants and 1060 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 9/18/2013 from 11:06 AM to 12:47 PM”, ibid., pp. 5426-5428; Bennett, “9/18 Session # 3: More Mayberry”, ibid. 1061 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 292QQ, op. cit., note 915, pp. 1, 11, 14, 30. 1062 Ibid., pp. 13-14, 26; Carol Rosenberg, “Accusation of FBI spying stalls 9/11 hearing”, Miami Herald website, 14 April 2014, <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1962835.html>; Ryan J. Reilly, “FBI Not Investigating Publication Of 9/11 Mastermind’s Letter, DOJ Tells Guantanamo Judge”, Huffington Post website, 21 April 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/guantanamo-fbi-ksm_n_5187728.html>. 1063 United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., AE 292QQ, op. cit., note 915, p. 13; Daphne Eviatar, “Secret Order Cancels Guantanamo Hearing on FBI Spying - Government ‘Transparency’ in Action”, The World Post website, 16 October 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/secret-order-cancelsguan_b_5998624.html>; Daphne Eviatar, “FBI Infiltration Of 9/11 Defense Continues to Delay Guantanamo Trial”, The World Post website, 14 August 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/fbi-infiltration-of-911-d_b_5679432.html>. 1064 Eviatar, “FBI Infiltration Of 9/11 Defense Continues to Delay Guantanamo Trial”, ibid.; Daphne Eviatar, “The FBI’s Secret Investigation of the 9/11 Defense Teams: The Mystery Continues, and Could Compromise the Case”, The World Post website, 16 June 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne-eviatar/the-fbis-secret-investiga_b_5500217.html>; United States Military Commission, United States of America v. Mohammad et al., “Unofficial/unauthenticated transcript of the hearing dated 4/14/2014 from 09:15 AM to 09:51 AM”, p. 7762. 1065 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, op. cit., note 648, paras. 34, 38; “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, op. cit., note 939, Principle 16. 1066 UN HRC, General Comment No. 32, ibid. 1067 “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, op. cit., note 939, Principle 16. 1068 See, for example, Daphne Eviatar, “9/11 Defendants Claim Military Commission Translator Assisted CIA Torture”, Human Rights First website, 10 February 2015, <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/911-defendants-claim-military-commissiontranslator-assisted-cia-torture>; Carol Rosenberg, “Guantánamo hearing halted by supposed CIA ‘black site’ worker serving as 180