'Fairness and the interests of justice': Illusive concepts in the Milošević case

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 9-19

  Sluiter, Göran ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27144461828     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/3.1.9     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. ICTY, Reasons for Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel, Milošević (IT-02-54-T), Trial Chamber, 22 September 2004 (hereinafter: The Decision).
2. ICTY, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber's Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, Milošević (IT-02-54-AR73.7), Appeals Chamber, 1 November 2004 (hereinafter: The Appeals Chamber decision).
3. Ibid., at §10.
4. ICTY, Dissenting Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Admissibility of Evidence in Chief in the Form of Written Statements, Milošević (IT-02-54-AR73.4), Appeals Chamber, 21 October 2003, §§ 21 and 22.
5. Decision, supra note 1, at §32.
6. As far as jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals is concerned, one notes that similar conclusions have been drawn in the cases of Barayagwiza (ICTR, Decision on Defence Counsel Motion to Withdraw, Barayagwiza (ICTR-97-19-T), Trial Chamber, 2 November 2000), Seselj (ICTY, Decision on Prosecution's Motion for Order Appointing Counsel to Assist Vojislav Seselj with his Defence, Seselj (IT-03-67-PT), Trial Chamber, 9 May 2003), Norman (SCSL, Consequential Order on Assignment and Role of Standby Counsel, Norman, Fofana and Kondewa (SCSL-04-14-T), Trial Chamber, 14 June 2004) and Gbao (SCSL, Decision on Application to Withdraw Counsel, Sesay Kallon and Gbao (SCSL-2004-15-T),Trial Chamber, 6 July 2004).
7. Appeals Chamber decision, supra note 2, at §12.
8. Seselj decision, supra note 6.
9. See supra note 6.
10. See Decision, supra note 1, at §61.
11. 422 United States Supreme Court Reports 806 (1975) 834, cited in the Decision, supra note 1, at §45.
12. Appeals Chamber decision, supra note 2, at §14.
13. Remarkably, this aspect of the right to self-representation was not addressed in the Appeals Chamber's brief analysis. The Appeals Chamber exclusively focused on the consequences of the accused's health on the progress of the trial and not on possible effects on the quality of the defence.
14. Decision, supra note 1, at §32.
15. See Supra note 6.
16. Decision, supra note 1, at §63.
17. Appeals Chamber decision, supra note 2, at §18.
18. Appeals Chamber decision, supra note 2, at §17.
19. Ibid., at §19.
20. Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 526/1993, UN doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, 2 April 1997.
21. ICTR, Decision, Barayagwiza (ICTR-97-19-A), Appeals Chamber, 3 November 1999, §40.
22. ICTY, Reasons for Decision on the Prosecution Motion concerning Assignment of Counsel, Milošević (IT-02-54-T),Trial Chamber, 4 April 2003.
23. See on those problems in more detail D. D. Ntanda Nsereko, 'Ethical Obligations of Counsel in Criminal Proceedings: Representing an Unwilling Client, 12 Criminal Law Forum (2001) 487-507.
24. Also embodied in Art. 21(4)(d) ICTYSt. and Art. 14 ICCPR.
25. Decision, supra note 1, at §22.
26. See supra note 6.
27. Appeals Chamber decision, supra note 2, at §13.
28. ICTY, Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, Tadić (IT-94-1-T),Trial Chamber, 10 August 1995.