"Decision"

8 June 2001

Procedural Background

• On 31 January 2000, the Appeals Chamber ruling in the first instance rendered the Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin1, in which it found that the Defence counsel had "put forward to it in support of the Rule 1152 application a case which was known to him to be false in relation to the weight to be given to the statements made by Mlado Radic and in relation to the responsibility of Goran Borovnica for the killing of two Muslim policemen; and that the Respondent manipulated Witnesses A and B by seeking to avoid any identification by them in statements of their evidence of persons who may have been responsible for the crimes for which Tadic had been convicted." (Para. 160) The Appeals Chamber considered that Milan Vujin's conduct was "substantially worse than that which permits the Registrar to strike counsel off the list pursuant to Article 20 of the Directive" on Assignment of Defence Counsel (hereinafter the "Directive)"3 (para. 171).

• On 27 February 2001, the Appeals Chamber rendered the Appeal Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Milan Vujin4, in which it upheld the Judgement of 31 January 2000 and ordered that "the Registrar may consider, bearing in mind the factual findings against the Appellant by the Appeals Chamber ruling in the first instance and in accordance with his powers, to strike off or suspend the Appellant for a set period from the list of assigned counsel kept pursuant to Rule 45(B) of the Rules5 and to report his conduct as found by the Appeals Chamber, ruling in the first instance, to the professional body to which he belongs."

• At the request of the Registrar, Milan Vujin sent him a confidential letter dated 29 March 2001 in which he submitted that payment of the fine and a temporary suspension from the Rule 45(B) list would be sufficient to protect the interests of justice.

The Decision

The Registrar decided that it was necessary to withdraw the name of Milan Vujin from the Rule 45(B) list of Defence counsel and ordered that this be done.

The Reasoning

The Registrar considered that the findings of the Appeals Chamber sitting in the first instance, in particular, the manipulation of witness testimony, "constitute a threat to the administration of justice before the Tribunal".

He also considered that "the Registrar may remove the name of counsel" from the above-mentioned list in accordance with Article 14(D) of the Directive6 where counsel has been found in contempt.

Lastly, the Registrar stated that Milan Vujin "is currently not representing any accused before the Tribunal", and considered that "the withdrawal of his name from the Rule 45(B) list would not be prejudicial to the defence of any accused appearing before the Tribunal".

________________________________________
1. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic ("Prijedor"), Case No. IT-94-1-A-AR77, Appeals Chamber, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 January 2000 (summarised in Judicial Supplement No. 11).
2. "(A) A party may apply by motion to present before the Appeals Chamber additional evidence which was not available to it at the trial. Such motion must be served on the other party and filed with the Registrar not less than fifteen days before the date of the hearing.
(B) The Appeals Chamber shall authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require."
3. "(A) Where the assignment of counsel is withdrawn by the Registrar or where the services of assigned counsel are discontinued, the counsel assigned may not withdraw from acting until either a replacement counsel has been provided by the Tribunal or by the suspect or accused, or the suspect or accused has declared his intention in writing to conduct his own defence.
(B) In the interests of justice, the withdrawn counsel may continue to represent the suspect or the accused for a period of not exceeding 30 days after the date on which the replacement is assigned. During this period, the costs necessarily and reasonably incurred by both counsel shall be met by the Tribunal."
4. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic ("Prijedor"), Case No. IT-94-1-A-AR77, Appeals Chamber, Appeal Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 27 February 2001 (summarised and analysed in Judicial Supplement No. 23).
5. "A list of counsel who, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of Rule 44, have shown that they possess reasonable experience in criminal and/or international law and have indicated their willingness to be assigned by the Tribunal to any person detained under the authority of the Tribunal lacking the means to remunerate counsel, shall be kept by the Registrar."
6. "The Registrar must remove the name of counsel from the list referred to in Rule 45 (B) where counsel no-longer satisfies the requirements of Article 14 (A). He may remove the name upon a decision by a Chamber to refuse audience to assigned counsel for misconduct under Rule 46 (A) or where counsel has been found to be in contempt pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules, in which case the counsel may seek the President's review within two weeks from the notification of the decision to counsel."