protected under international human rights law, and reaffirmed in OSCE commitments, has been violated in the Guantánamo context as all seven detainees currently facing military commissions proceedings were denied such access from at least several months to several years. Where such delay in legal representation also hindered the ability of the accused to prepare his defence, it also violates international humanitarian law. 61. While the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2009 provides for the defendant’s right to choose military defence counsel, in practice this choice is very limited. Existing limitations to the right to choose a civilian lawyer appear to be based on reasonable and objective criteria, such as the requirement for national security clearance. Defendants facing capital military commissions can also be assisted by at least one additional learned counsel. 62. Alleged violations of the privileged attorney-client relationship, such as limitations placed on lawyers’ ability to meet frequently with their clients or violations of defendants’ right to privately and confidentially communicate with their counsel, impair their right to adequately prepare their defence. 63. Equality of arms requires that defence counsel be granted access to documents and other evidence that the prosecution intends to use in court, including exculpatory material, in order to adequately prepare their case. While the “presumptive classification” of all statements of the accused is not applied anymore, the classification rules, policies and practices continue to have a significant impact on the attorney-client communication and defence investigations, in particular related to the treatment of “high-value detainees” in the CIA RDI programme. Classification restrictions have reportedly prevented the disclosure of mitigating evidence. Progress has been made following the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Study on the CIA RDI Programme (hereinafter “the Senate Study on the CIA RDI Programme”). It has allowed for the declassification of information on the application of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to some defendants in CIA secret detention, and the description of some of their conditions of confinement until their transfer to Guantánamo in September 2006. 64. Classification restrictions raise grave concerns, as they have prevented the accused from complaining about human rights violations and seeking redress, but have also affected the ability of the attorneys to investigate and have adequate facilities to prepare a defence. The lack of clarity of classification rules and the fear of criminal prosecution against defence counsels in case classified information is revealed are other examples influencing the ability of counsels to provide as effective a representation as possible. The reportedly very high number of ex parte submission by the prosecution where evidence is completely unavailable to the defence, and the obligation for the defence to share with the judge and prosecution a brief description of the information that it is requesting to disclose adversely impact the preparation of a defence and undermine the right of an accused to communicate in full confidentiality with his lawyer. 65. As to the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to subpoena witnesses, the defence does not have the same legal powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses, examining and cross-examining them as are available to the prosecution, in violation of the 19