Three Month Adjournment Upheld by Appeals Chamber
Three Month Adjournment Upheld by Appeals Chamber
Slobodan Milosevic must be ready to begin his defence three months from the date the Prosecution concludes its case in chief (anticipated to be February 17), the Appeals Chamber ruled on 20 January 2004. The decision upheld the Trial Chamber's decision of September 17, 2003, and dismissed an appeal by the Amicus Curiae.
While acknowledging that the Amici are not a party to the proceedings and do not represent the Accused's interests, the majority of the Appeals Panel nevertheless allowed the appeal and ruled on the merits. In a separate opinion, Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen stated he would have dismissed outright for the Amici's lack of party status. Both opinions noted that the Amici are friends of the court, not friends of the accused. (The disputing parties are the prosecution and accused.)
The Amici appealed on the ground that the Trial Chamber had given insufficient consideration to a variety of factors. The Appeals Court disagreed, noting that the Trial Chamber has great discretion in managing the trial and will be overturned only for an error of fact or law. Reviewing the record, the higher court found no such errors. Judge Theodor Meron, President of the Tribunal, wrote for the majority, 'The authority best placed to determine what time is sufficient for the Accused to finish preparing his defence in this admittedly complex case is the Trial Chamber which has been conducting his trial for over two years.'
The Appeals Chamber went on to note that any disadvantages this occasions for a self-represented accused result from his own choice. 'There is no doubt, by choosing to conduct his own defence, the Accused deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal defence team could have provided. A defendant who decides to represent himself relinquishes many of the benefits associated with representation by counsel. The legal system's respect for a defendant's decision to forgo assistance of counsel must be reciprocated by the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring.' In other words, an Accused can't have it both ways -- insisting on representing himself and complaining that he lacks the expertise of counsel. [Nevertheless, courts do make considerable allowances for self-represented accused to insure they receive as fair a trial as possible under the circumstances. In Milosevic's case, the Trial Chamber routinely grants him extensive time for cross examination, far longer than it would allow to professional counsel.]
Though dismissing the appeal, the Appeals Chamber made note of the Trial Chambers' ongoing duty to ensure a fair trial, which, it stated, may entail permitting additional adjournments if evidence shows the Accused lacks sufficient time and resources for his defence. Though the subject is closed for now, it is not closed for all time. Still, Milosevic can expect to return to court in late May or early June to present his opening statement.
While acknowledging that the Amici are not a party to the proceedings and do not represent the Accused's interests, the majority of the Appeals Panel nevertheless allowed the appeal and ruled on the merits. In a separate opinion, Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen stated he would have dismissed outright for the Amici's lack of party status. Both opinions noted that the Amici are friends of the court, not friends of the accused. (The disputing parties are the prosecution and accused.)
The Amici appealed on the ground that the Trial Chamber had given insufficient consideration to a variety of factors. The Appeals Court disagreed, noting that the Trial Chamber has great discretion in managing the trial and will be overturned only for an error of fact or law. Reviewing the record, the higher court found no such errors. Judge Theodor Meron, President of the Tribunal, wrote for the majority, 'The authority best placed to determine what time is sufficient for the Accused to finish preparing his defence in this admittedly complex case is the Trial Chamber which has been conducting his trial for over two years.'
The Appeals Chamber went on to note that any disadvantages this occasions for a self-represented accused result from his own choice. 'There is no doubt, by choosing to conduct his own defence, the Accused deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal defence team could have provided. A defendant who decides to represent himself relinquishes many of the benefits associated with representation by counsel. The legal system's respect for a defendant's decision to forgo assistance of counsel must be reciprocated by the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring.' In other words, an Accused can't have it both ways -- insisting on representing himself and complaining that he lacks the expertise of counsel. [Nevertheless, courts do make considerable allowances for self-represented accused to insure they receive as fair a trial as possible under the circumstances. In Milosevic's case, the Trial Chamber routinely grants him extensive time for cross examination, far longer than it would allow to professional counsel.]
Though dismissing the appeal, the Appeals Chamber made note of the Trial Chambers' ongoing duty to ensure a fair trial, which, it stated, may entail permitting additional adjournments if evidence shows the Accused lacks sufficient time and resources for his defence. Though the subject is closed for now, it is not closed for all time. Still, Milosevic can expect to return to court in late May or early June to present his opening statement.
