Judicial Supplement 40 - The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin

The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin - Case No. IT-99-36-T

“Decision on Defence Motion for Adjournment”

10 March 2003
Trial Chamber II (Judges Agius [Presiding], Janu and Taya)

Continuation of the proceedings in the absence of Lead Counsel – Role of Co -counsel.

the right of an accused to be represented by Counsel does not justify a significant delay in proceedings during the absence of Lead Counsel where there is a Co-counsel assigned to the case and available to attend trial;

an absence of express language in the Directive mandating that Co-counsel take over the case in the absence of Lead Counsel does not preclude that this should be the case where there will otherwise be an unnecessary and significant delay in proceedings and an unjustified drain on the resources of the Tribunal.

Procedural Background

· On 4 March 2003, the Defence filed a confidential “Motion for Adjournment of Trial” to request that the case be adjourned between 14 March and 14 April 2003 in the absence of Lead Counsel for medical reasons. Radoslav Brdjanin relied on his right to choose his Counsel¹ and on the fact that the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel (the “Directive”) does not mandate that Co-counsel take over in the absence of chosen Lead Counsel.

The Decision

The Trial Chamber rejected the arguments of the Defence but nevertheless ordered that the case be adjourned and resume on 14 April 2003.

The Reasoning

The Trial Chamber held that:

- “the right of an accused to be represented by Counsel […] does not justify a significant delay in proceedings during the absence of Lead Counsel where there is a Co-counsel assigned to the case and available to attend trial;

- an absence of express language in the Directive mandating that Co-counsel take over the case in the absence of Lead Counsel does not preclude that this should be the case where there will otherwise be an unnecessary and significant delay in proceedings and an unjustified drain on the resources of the Tribunal.”

It therefore found that the arguments of the Defence do not justify an adjournment of the case for the requested period.

However, taking into account that a new Co-counsel may be appointed² and that such new Co-counsel “will require a minimum amount of time to familiarise him or herself with the case and its documents”, it ordered that the proceedings in the present case be adjourned following the 14 March 2003 hearing and resume on 14 April 2003 “in the interest of justice”.

________________________________________
1. On the issue of assignment of Counsel see inter alia Knezevic, 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, Judicial Supplement No. 36.
2. In a confidential decision filed on 7 March 2003, the Registrar withdrew the assignment of Mr. Trbojevic as Co-counsel and invited the Lead Counsel (Mr. Ackerman) to consider submitting a request for the assignment of a new Co-counsel.