The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic - Case No. IT-94-1-A
"Decision on Milan Vujin's Request for the Review of the Registrar's Decision pursuant to Article 14(D) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel"
11 September 2001
Judge Claude Jorda
Removal from the list of assigned counsel kept by the Registrar for contempt of the Tribunal - Rules 44, 45(B) and 77 of the Rules - Article 14(D) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel - Administrative authority of the Registrar - Articles 17 and 33 of the Statute - Autonomy of the Registrar - Discretionary power.
On 31 January 2000, the Appeals Chamber ruling in the first instance rendered its Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin1. It found that Defence Counsel had "put forward to it in support of the Rule 115 application a case which was known to him to be false."
On 27 February 2001, the Appeals Chamber ruling on appeal rendered its Appeal Judgement in which it upheld the Judgement of 31 January 20002.
On 8 June 2001, in accordance with his powers, the Registrar decided to strike Milan Vujin from the Rule 45(B) list of assigned counsel.
On 28 June
2001, Milan Vujin submitted a Request to review the Decision of the Registrar
to the President of the Tribunal, Judge Claude Jorda. He argued that "the
Registrar may not rely on Article 14(D) of the Directive to remove him from
the Rule 45(B) list of counsel since the provision post-dates the conduct
characterised as contempt of the Tribunal and is consequently inapplicable
in the case in point and that the Rules and Directive applicable at the time
of the facts provide the Registrar with no basis for removing his name from
the Rule 45(B) list of counsel further to a conviction for contempt of the
Tribunal pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules."
The President of the Tribunal dismissed the request and confirmed the Registrar's Decision to withdraw Mr. Milan Vujin from the Rule 45(B) list of counsel.
Pursuant to Rule 45(B)3, the Registrar keeps a list of counsel who fulfil the requirements of the Rules and, in accordance with his discretionary power, decides whether counsel meet the requirements. He has an autonomous power clearly underscored by the Appeals Chamber in its Appeal Judgement. This power is manifestly distinct from that of the Appeals Chamber to sanction and it permitted him to decide what measures were appropriate in the instant case. The Registrar considered that "the findings against [Mr. Milan Vujin] constitute a continuing threat to the administration of justice" and justify his removal from the Rule 45(B) list of counsel. Consequently, the Registrar's Decision was "purely administrative in nature" and did not violate "the principle of nullum crimen nulla pna sine lege established in criminal matters".
Pursuant to Rule 44(C)4, counsel appearing before the Tribunal must respect certain obligations including the Code of Professional Conduct. In its Judgement, the Appeals Chamber acknowledged that "the acts characterised as contempt of the Tribunal constituted serious violations and professional misconduct falling within all the categories established under Articles 13 and 20 of the Code of Conduct". In its Appeal Judgement, it emphasised that in case of conviction for contempt, counsel may expect to be suspended or struck off the list. Mr. Vujin had to expect that he would be removed from the Rule 45(B) list of counsel since Rule 45 specifies that the Registrar keeps a list of counsel who fulfil the requirements of Rule 44(C) and since he no longer satisfied these requirements.
1. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic ("Prijedor"), Case No. IT-94-1-AR77, Appeals Chamber, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 January 2000 (summarised in Judicial Supplement No. 11).
2. 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 in Judicial Supplement No. 23).
3. "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".
4. "In the performance of their duties counsel shall be subject to the relevant provisions of the Statute, the Rules, the Rules of Detention and any other rules or regulations adopted by the Tribunal, the Host Country Agreement, the Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel and the codes of practice and ethics governing their profession and, if applicable, the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel".