Commentary: The Assignment of Defence Counsel Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 957-968

  Wladimiroff, Michaïl ^a  

^a Supreme Court of the Netherlands ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

assignment of defense counsel; fair trial; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966484985     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156599000497     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. The same is true for the ICC. Defence counsel is only mentioned in four articles of the Statute; Arts. 48, 55, 65 and 67 (see UN Doc. A Conf 183/9 of 17 July 1998). The role of the defence counsel is currently debated at the PrepCom drafting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC in the context of the proposal to establish a Defence Unit (UN Doc. PCNICC/I999/WGRPE(4)DP.2), but not the mechanism of assignment of counsel. Under the auspices of the International Criminal Defence Attorney Association and the Leiden University an international conference took place at the ICTY where these matters were discussed on 1-2 November 1999.
2. SC Res. 955 (1994), UN SCOR, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), modified by SC Res, 1165 (1998), UN SCOR, UN Doc. S/RES/1165 (1998), see annex (8 Nov. 1994), reprinted in 33 ILM 1598 (1994)
3. The same guarantees are reiterated in Art. 21 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
4. See Article 14 ICCPR (GA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc, A/6316 (1966), 999 UNTS 171.
5. See Art. 7 of tlie ACHPR (OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, reprinted in ILM 58, 1982).
6. Art. 6 ECHR (UNTS 221, 1950).
7. Adopted on 29 June 1995 and since then amended; lastly on 1 July 1999 (UN Doc. ITR/3/Rev 7).
8. As approved by the Tribunal on 9 January 1995 and since then amended, lastly on 1 July 1999 (UN Doc. ICTR/2/L.2).
9. Prosecutor v. Elizaphan Ntakirutima, Decision on the Motion by Accused to be Assigned New Counsel, Case No. ICTR-96-10-T/1CTR-96-17-T, T.Ch.I, 11 June 1997.
10. Prosecutor v. PauHne Nyiramgcuhnko & Aisene Shalom Ntahobali, Requete d'extreme urgence de la defense en exception prejudicielle foiidee sur le rejet d'une demande de commission d'ofFice d'un conseil. Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, Tr.Ch.I, 13 March 1998.
11. Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic a/k/a “Pavo”, Halim Delic, Esad Landzo a/k/a “Zenga”, Decision on the Request by Accused Mucic for Assignment of new Counsel, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Tr.Ch.I, 24 June 1996.
12. Prosecutor V. KupreSkic et al. Decision on Defence Requests for Assignment of Counsel, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Tr.Ch.III, 10 March 1998.
13. Prosecutor v. Simic et al. Decision on the Prosecution Motion to Resolve Conflict of Interest Regarding Attorney Borislav Pisarevid, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Tr.Ch.III, 25 March 1999.
14. Art. 21 of the ICTY Statute is identical to Article 20 ol'lhe ICTR Statute.
15. Prosecutor v, Jean-Paul Akayesu, Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, Case No. ICTR-96-4-A, A.Ch., 27 July 1999.
16. In the Order Regarding Esad Landzo's Request for Removal of John Ackerman as Counsel on appeal for Zejnil Delalii of 6 May 1999 (Case 1T-96-21-A) and the Order on the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel due to a conflict of Interest of 24 June 1999 (Case IT-96-21-A).
17. Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 82 UNTS 279, Art. 16(d).
18. Art. 23(2).
19. B. Ferencz, Nuremberg Trial Procedure and the Rights of the Accused, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 144-147 (1948).
20. Joseph E. Persico, Nuremberg-Imfamy on Trial, at 94 (1994).
21. John R. Prichard, An Overview of the Historical Importance of the Tokyo War Trials, in C. Hosoya et al. (Eds.), The Tokyo War Crimes Trial-An International Symposium, at 93 (1986).
22. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3, Art. I4(4)(d).
23. UN Human Rights Committee Communications: Kelly v, Jamaica (No. 253/1987), Little v, Jamaica (No. 283/1988), Berry v, Jamaica (No. 330/1988) and Wright v. Jamaica (No. 459/1991).
24. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950,218 UNTS 221, Art. 6(3)(c).
25. App. 127/55, 30 May 1956, 1 Yearbook 230. The policy of the former Commission may have aimed to contain the financial implications of dornestic legal aid systems. In the cases X v, Netherlands, X V. UK and F v. Switzerland the Commission held that the accused is not entitled to choose the lawyer who will represent him on legal aid. The mechanism of assignment of domestic legal aid systems is a matter of state responsibility. None the less, the Commission has never agreed with such restraints on the influence of indigent person in the assignment of counsel that an evident lack of confidence in counsel not wished by the accused would negatively cffect the guarantees of Art. 6 of the Convention.
26. See S, Stray os. The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, at 215 (1993).
27. PakelH v. Germany, Judgement of 25 April 1983, ECHR (Ser. A) no. 64.
28. Croissant v. Germany, Judgement of 25 September 1992, ECHR (Ser. A) no. 237-B (1993) 16 EHRR 135.
29. Id., para. 29.
30. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Effective Access to the Law and Justice For the Very Poor, at 6-7 (1994). (Emphasis added).
31. Compare W. B. LaFave & J. H. Israel, Criminal Procedure, at 547 (1992).