The Prosecutor v. Dusko Knezevic- Case No. IT-95-4-PT, IT-95-8/1-PT

"Decision on Accused's Request for Review
of Registrar's Decision as to Assignment of Counsel"

6 September 2002
Trial Chamber III (Judges May [Presiding], Robinson and Kwon)

Procedural Background

· On 10 June 2002, the Registrar rejected the request of Dusko Knezevic ("the Accused") for the assignment of Mr. Miodrag Deretic. The Registrar's decision was based on the fact that as of 21 August 2001, Mr. Deretic was assigned as co-counsel to Mr. Zoran Zigic who was formerly charged in the same indictment as the Accused with crimes in the same location. The Registrar assigned Mr. Thomas Moran as Defence counsel to the Accused.

· On 24 June 2002, the Accused challenged the Decision of the Registrar of 10 June 2002 and requested that Mr. Drasko Zec be assigned as his counsel. The Registrar rejected this request on the ground that Mr. Zec and Mr. Deretic shared the same law office in Prijedor and that the professional relationship between both attorneys was not sufficiently clear, so as to ensure that a potential conflict of interest would not occur.

The Decision

The Trial Chamber denied the Application of the accused Knezevic challenging the decision by the Registrar of 10 June 2002.

The Reasoning

The right to a counsel of the accused's own choosing

The Trial Chamber affirmed that contrary to the submission of the Accused and Mr. Zec, "the right of indigent accused to counsel of his own choosing is not without limits" and that the decision for the assignment of counsel rests with the Registrar. This reaffirms the findings of the Ntakirutimana Decision,1 whereby, unless it has reasonable and valid grounds not to grant the request, the Registrar must take the wishes of the accused into account.

The Trial Chamber recalled that the Registrar has the primary responsibility for matters relating to qualification, appointment or assignment of counsel.2

The power of a Trial Chamber to review a Registrar's decision on assignment of counsel

Considering that matters relating to the assignment of counsel for an accused affect the conduct of a trial and that the Chamber has a statutory obligation to ensure the fair and expeditious conduct of proceedings with full respect for the rights of the accused, the Trial Chamber held that the body responsible for the assignment of counsel is the Registrar and therefore that the "power" of a Trial Chamber to review a decision to assign a counsel "should only be used in exceptional cases".3

The Trial Chamber found that the Registrar's decision not to appoint Mr. Zec as counsel to the Accused was justified. It considered that Mr. Zec's proposal (overheard in a non-privileged telephone conversation) that the Accused should appoint him as counsel in order to enable Mr. Deretic to act alongside him constituted improper conduct and would in effect "nullify the Registrar's decision not to appoint Mr. Deretic".

________________________________________
1. Ntakirutimana, ICTR-96-10-T, ICTR-96-17-T, Decision on the Motions of the Accused for Replacement of Assigned Counsel/Corr., 11 June 1997.
2. Hadzihasanovic, IT-01-47-PT, Decision on Prosecution's Motion for Review of the Decision of the Registrar to Assign Mr. Rodney Dixon as Co-Counsel to the Accused Kubura, 26 March 2002, Judicial Supplement No. 31 bis.
3. In fact, "on further reflection", the Trial Chamber affirmed that "in the exercise of its power under Rule 54 to issue such orders as may be necessary for the conduct of the trial, the Trial Chamber is empowered to review the decision of the Registrar".