Need for a specific warning
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Assignment of Counsel - 20.10.2006 |
ŠEŠELJ Vojislav (IT-03-67-AR73.3) |
|
|
The Appeals chamber considered that, before restricting the accused’s right to self-representation, the Trial Chamber must issue an explicit warning specifically directed to the accused in the form of an oral or written statement. It held: a warning with regard to possible assignment of counsel needs to be explicit, in the form of an oral or written statement to an accused explaining the disruptive behaviour and that, if it persists, the consequence will be restriction on the accused’s right to self-representation.[1] [1] Decision, para. 26. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Order in Relation to the Appeal Hearing - 18.09.2017 |
ŠEŠELJ Vojislav (MICT-16-99-A) |
|
|
Pages 2-3 CONSIDERING that Šešelj has elected to represent himself and that he has the right to self‑representation at the appeal stage; […] CONSIDERING that, in view of Šešelj’s current position not to appear at the appeal hearing, the Appeals Chamber must take appropriate measures to ensure that his interests are represented at the upcoming appeal hearing in order to ensure the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings; CONSIDERING that, prior to restricting Šešelj’s right to self-representation, the Appeals Chamber must issue a warning that is specific in nature; CONSIDERING that, if [ešelj maintains his intention not to attend the appeal hearing, it will be in the interests of justice to instruct the Registrar pursuant to Rules 46 and 131 of the Rules to assign a standby counsel to represent Šešelj’s interests in the event that Šešelj is not present at the appeal hearing; CONSIDERING that any restrictions on Šešelj’s right to represent himself must be limited to the minimum extent necessary to protect the Mechanism’s interest in a reasonably expeditious resolution of the appeal before it; CONSIDERING, therefore, that, in order to preserve Šešelj’s right to self-representation, the mandate of the standby counsel shall be strictly limited to ensuring that Šešelj’s procedural rights at the hearing are protected if he does not attend, and shall not extend to making a response on [ešelj’s behalf on the substance of the Prosecution’s appeal; […] CONSIDERING that Šešelj should be given an opportunity to reconsider his position not to attend the appeal hearing prior to instructing the Registrar to assign standby counsel;[5] [1] Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Decision on Momčilo Krajišnik’s Request to Self-Represent, on Counsel’s Motions in Relation to Appointment of Amicus Curiae, and on the Prosecution Motion of 16 February 2007, 11 May 2007, paras. 10-12. [2] Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-AR73.3, Decision on Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Counsel, 20 October 2006 (“Šešelj Appeal Decision”), paras. 22-25. [3] See Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 109. [4] See Slobodan Milošević v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.7, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, 1 November 2004, paras. 17, 19. [5] Šešelj Appeal Decision, paras. 24, 25. |
IRMCT Statute
Article 19(4)(d)
IRMCT Rule
Rule 46; Rule 131 |
|