Prlic Attempt to Disqualify Judge Rejected
Tribunal president rules defence has not established any actual bias or appearance of bias on part of judge hearing case.
Prlic Attempt to Disqualify Judge Rejected
Tribunal president rules defence has not established any actual bias or appearance of bias on part of judge hearing case.
Bosnian Croat political leader Jadranko Prlic’s bid to disqualify one of the judges hearing the case against him has been rejected, the president of the Hague tribunal ruled this week.
Prlic, along with one of his five co-defendants, Slobodan Praljak, alleged that Judge Prandler was acquainted in some capacity with Victor Andreev, the former head of United Nations Civil Affairs in Bosnia who authored four reports that were entered into evidence during the Prlic trial.
Prlic had previously requested a public hearing to clarify the relationship between Judge Prandler and Andreev, but this request was rejected.
According to an August 30 defence motion, the fact that Judge Prandler knew Andreev was revealed during the March 2010 testimony of Milivoj Petkovic, another co-accused in the Prlic case.
The six defendants are charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against Bosniaks on territory claimed by Bosnian Croats during the war.
After Petkovic spoke of his dealings with Andreev, Judge Prandler said that he knew “Mr Andreev from the United Nations work and from New York”.
As set out in the defence motion, Judge Prandler then asked Petkovic whether he had “concrete events which you base your position on [Andreev], as far as when you say those are his assessments and his games, and what do you mean by ‘games’?”
Prlic’s lawyer, Michael Karnavas, stated that Judge Prandler “may give undue weight to evidence just because it is generated by or associated with Andreev”, which could “endanger Dr Prlic’s right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal”.
“The inescapable question underlying the issue at hand is, therefore, a short one,” Karnavas concluded. “If Judge Prandler’s association with Andreev is innocuous and inconsequential to the proceedings, then why not transparently and voluntarily provide the necessary clarification? Doing otherwise does, regrettably, gives the appearance that something is deliberately being concealed to avoid a challenge for disqualification.”
In his decision this week, tribunal president Judge Patrick Robinson stated that Judge Prandler has confirmed that “Andreev was nothing more than a distant acquaintance … whom he met at the United Nations in New York in second half of the 1980s”.
“They worked in separate departments, never participated in common projects or activities and did not form any kind of personal relationship,” Judge Robinson continued.
“The Prlic and Praljak defences have not established any actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of Judge Prandler and have not rebutted the strong presumption of his impartiality.”
Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
