to the Department of Justice and the subsequent employment negotiations concerning an open position for an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which created an appearance of bias, disqualifying Spath from presiding over al-Nashiri's military commission. Spath had retired on November 1, 2018, and was appointed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions as an immigration judge in October 2018. After oral arguments were held before a panel consisting of Judge Rogers, Tatel, and Griffith, the Court vacated all orders issued by Spath, concluding that "Spath’s job application to the Justice Department created a disqualifying appearance of partiality". In writing for a unanimous court, Tatel wrote: European Court of Human Rights judgment On July 24, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Poland violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it cooperated with the U.S. by allowing the CIA to hold and torture al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah on its territory in 2002–2003. The court ordered the Polish government to pay each of the men 100,000 euros in damages. Additionally, the ECHR ordered the Polish government to disclose details of the men's detention and to seek diplomatic assurances from the United States that al-Nashiri will not be executed. On the 31 May 2018, in the Case of Al Nashiri v. Romania (Application no. 33234/12) the Court claimed Romania was complicit in CIA rendition and had suffered various ECHR violations. It stated the following in its rulings; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Holds that the matters complained of are within the “jurisdiction” of Romania within the meaning of Article 1 of the convention and that the responsibility of Romania is engaged under the convention, and dismisses the Government's preliminary objection concerning a lack of jurisdiction and responsibility; 2. Decides to join to the merits the Government's preliminary objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and non-compliance with the six-month rule and dismisses them; 3. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect on account of the respondent State's failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of serious violations of the convention, including inhuman treatment and undisclosed detention;