Judge David Hunt, Presiding
Judge Fouad Riad
Judge Wang Tieya
Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia
Judge Mohamed Bennouna

Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh

Order of:
24 June 1999



Zejnil DELALIC, Zdravko MUCIC (aka "PAVO"), Hazim DELIC and Esad LANDZO (aka "ZENGA")




Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr Yapa Upawansa
Mr Christopher Staker
Mr Rodney Dixon

Counsel for the Accused

Mr John Ackerman for Zejnil Delalic
Mrs Nihada Buturovic and Mr Howard Morrison for Zdravko Mucic
Mr Salih Karabdic and Mr Thomas Moran for Hazim Delic
Ms Cynthia Sinatra and Mr Peter Murphy for Esad Landzo


THE APPEALS CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal");

BEING SEIZED of the "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel due to Conflict of Interest" filed on 17 June 1999 ("Motion") by Mr Tom Moran, co-counsel for Hazim Delic, seeking to be relieved immediately as co-counsel for the accused on basis that he will be unable to provide effective assistance to Hazim Delic without risking his employment:

NOTING the "Reply of the Prosecution to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel due to Conflict of Interest and the New Motion to Extend Time for Appeal Brief" filed 22 June 1999;

NOTING the Order of 12 February 1999 that provides that the Appellants, including Hazim Delic, shall have until 2 July 1999 to file their Appellant briefs;

NOTING The Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel Appearing before the International Tribunal requires counsel –

(i) to represent his client until the client duly terminates his position or until counsel is otherwise withdrawn with the consent of the Tribunal (Article 4(1)),

(ii) never to permit his independence, integrity and standards to be compromised by external pressures (Article 5(e)), and

(iii) unless representation is terminated, to carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for the client within the scope of his legal representation (Article 6);

NOTING that under Article 20 of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel the Registrar has the primary discretionary competence to withdraw the assignment of co-counsel in exceptional circumstances and that if such a request is denied the person making the request may seek the President’s review of the decision of the Registrar;

NOTING that under Article 21(A) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel assigned counsel is prevented, notwithstanding the withdrawal by the Registrar of his assignment or the discontinuance of his services, from withdrawing from acting for the client until either a replacement counsel has been provided by the Tribunal or the client or the client has declared his intention in writing to conduct his own defence;

CONSIDERING the inherent power which the Tribunal has, deriving from its judicial function and from the provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of its Statute, to control its proceedings in such a way as to ensure that justice is done and, particularly in relation to matters of practice, that the trial proceeds fairly and expeditiously;

CONSIDERING that such a power in relation to the removal of assigned counsel was assumed by the Appeals Chamber in this present appeal, in its "Order Regarding Esad Landžo’s Request for the Removal of John Ackerman as Counsel on Appeal for Zejnil Delalic” of 6 May 1999;

CONSIDERING that it is not ordinarily appropriate for a Chamber to consider a motion for the withdrawal of the assignment counsel where no such motion has been presented to and rejected by the Registrar and that decision has been subsequently reviewed and upheld by the President;

CONSIDERING nevertheless the particular circumstances of this case, where there is a very short time period between the filing of the Motion and the date upon which the appellant brief of Hazim Delic is due, it is appropriate to consider the Motion on its merits without waiting for the aforementioned processes to be followed;

CONSIDERING that the allegations upon which the Motion is based are unproved;

CONSIDERING that, even if proved, these allegations would not constitute a proper basis upon which to withdraw the assignment to Mr Moran just days before the appellant brief of Hazim Delic is due, as to do so on the grounds of Mr Moran’s personal interests is contrary to counsel’s obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel Appearing before the International Tribunal, and to the interests of his client and of justice;


Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

Judge David Hunt
Presiding Judge

Dated this twenty fourth day of June1999
At The Hague
The Netherlands

[Seal of the Tribunal]