Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've

Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this? I found this in one of their documents: "Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219... You write: > Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.