82. Accomplice testimony is not per se unreliable, and its use by a Trial Chamber, in and of itself, does not constitute error. Such evidence, however, must be carefully considered in light of the circumstances under which it was given. […] In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber treated this evidence with appropriate caution. […]

14. The Appeals Chamber ultimately confirmed that as a participant in the International Tribunal’s legal aid program, Blagojević did not have the absolute right to choose his counsel;[1] that the Registrar had properly assigned competent counsel committed to representing Blagojević’s interests;[2] that good cause did not exist for removing his duly assigned defence team;[3] and that he was not justified in unilaterally refusing to cooperate with his lawyers.[4] […]

17. Blagojević submits that the Trial Chamber violated his right to counsel of his choice when it refused to replace his entire defence team after the breakdown in trust and communication between him and his assigned counsel. This submission consists of two principal arguments. First, Blagojević maintains that, even as a participant in the International Tribunal’s legal aid system, he has a right to counsel of his choice. This argument has no merit. An accused who lacks the means to remunerate counsel shall have the right to have counsel assigned to him by the Registrar from the list drawn up in accordance with Rule 45(B), provided that there is no impediment to the assignment of that counsel.[5] While there is the additional limitation placed on the right of an indigent accused to choose counsel in so far as the choice is limited to the list of counsel maintained in accordance with Rule 45, as previously explained in this case, the Registrar normally takes account of an accused’s preferences in assigning counsel, as was done in the present case, but it is also within the Registrar’s discretion to override that preference in the interests of justice.[6] Once counsel has been properly assigned, as was the case here, counsel has a professional obligation to continue representing the accused and may only be withdrawn or replaced, if sufficient cause exists.[7]

145. The Appeals Chamber has previously noted that, although a Trial Chamber’s factual findings are governed by the legal rule that facts essential to establishing the guilt of an accused have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, this does not affect their nature as factual conclusions.[1] A party arguing that a Trial Chamber based its factual conclusions on insufficient evidence therefore submits that the Trial Chamber committed an error in fact, not an error in law.

17. […] After the question of whether the Appellant would in fact be a “necessary witness” was remitted to the Trial Chamber, pursuant to the Clarification Decision, the Trial Chamber found that it “reasonably foresees the likelihood that the Appellant will be called as a witness in this case because of his position as former Minister of Justice at the time of alleged crimes”.[1]

18. The Appeals Chamber finds no error in this conclusion. Article 26 of the Code of Professional Conduct only envisages that “Counsel shall not act as an advocate in a proceeding in which counsel is likely to be a necessary witness”.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that because their trials have been joined, Gotovina, Cermak and Markač are in the same proceeding. Although the Prosecution did not envisage calling the Appellant as a witness, and Markač and Čermak appear to hold the view that their respective defence strategies will not involve calling the Appellant as a witness, Gotovina has not ruled out the possibility of calling him as a witness. Further, the Trial Chamber has not ruled out at this stage that it might choose to call him as a witness.[3]

19. In addition, should the Appellant be called to testify, the Trial Chamber is not precluded from using his evidence in support of or against Čermak or Markač.[4] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber found that the cases of the three accused are inherently connected because they took place in the same geographic area, in the same time period and in the course of the same military operation, and that they were allegedly committed pursuant to the same joint criminal enterprise of which all three accused are alleged to be members.[5] On the basis of this factual nexus some of the evidence, including that of the Appellant, may be the same.

23. […] The Appeals Chamber also recalls that a conflict of interest between an attorney and a client arises in any situation where, by reason of certain circumstances, representation by such an attorney prejudices, or could prejudice, the interests of the client and the wider interests of justice.[1]

28. As noted by the Trial Chamber, due to the compelling circumstances of the Appellant’s own personal interest in this case, the harm caused to Markač and the integrity of the proceedings if the Appellant were to continue as his counsel in the proceedings would clearly and demonstrably outweigh any hardship suffered by Markač as a result of the Appellant’s withdrawal as his counsel.[1] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Markač is also represented by co-counsel who will likely continue to represent him in the absence of one of the exceptions under Article 9(B) of the Code of Professional Conduct.

29. The Appeals Chamber further finds that, even though the Appellant’s withdrawal will inevitably cause a delay in the proceedings, there could be greater hardship to Markač at a later stage of the proceedings, should the conflict of interest regarding the Appellant’s representation of Markač not be resolved at the present stage. The Appeals Chamber notes in this respect that, for example, Gotovina’s Defence has not waived his right to call the Appellant as a witness and that therefore the Appellant could still face withdrawal pursuant to Article 26 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that such situation is likely to irreversibly prejudice the administration of justice.

The Appeals Chamber has reiterated the standard of review applicable to interlocutory appeals against discretionary decisions of a Trial Chamber:

11. The Appeals Chamber recalls that an interlocutory appeal is not a de novo review of the Trial Chamber’s decision.[1] Since decisions on matters relating to the calling of witnesses and assignment of counsel at trial fall squarely within the discretion of the Trial Chamber,[2] the question before the Appeals Chamber is not whether it “agrees with that decision” but “whether the Trial Chamber has correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that decision.”[3] The party challenging a discretionary decision by the Trial Chamber must demonstrate that the Trial Chamber has committed a “discernible error”.[4] The Appeals Chamber will overturn a Trial Chamber’s exercise of its discretion where it is found to be “(1) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (2) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (3) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion”.[5]

The Prosecution argued that the Trial Chamber erred in not applying Rules 70(G) and 89(D) after the Trial Chamber heard General Clark’s testimony.[1] The Appeals Chamber held that the Trial Chamber correctly applied the Rules.[2] It then held:

18. Furthermore, this analysis does not change simply because the Trial Chamber was considering whether to admit a Rule 70 witness subject to conditions imposed by a Rule 70 provider. While Rule 70(C) and (D) of the Rules refers to certain restrictions on a Trial Chamber in hearing a witness testify to confidential material provided by a Rule 70 provider, those restrictions apply only after the Trial Chamber has determined that the Rule 70 witness testimony “elected” to be presented by a party at trial[3] is admissible under Rule 89 of the Rules. In making that determination, a Trial Chamber is entitled under Rule 70(G) of the Rules to consider whether the Rule 70 restrictions stipulated with respect to that witness testimony would undermine the need to ensure a fair trial and substantially outweigh the testimony’s probative value such as to lead to exclusion of that testimony. A Trial Chamber is not obliged to automatically admit such Rule 70 witness testimony where it is deemed relevant and probative and, only afterwards, asses the actual unfairness caused to the trial by the Rule 70 conditions as applied. The Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 70 protections on confidential information provided by States have been incorporated in the International Tribunal’s Rules in recognition of the need of States for safeguards with respect to certain State interests. They have also been included to allow and to encourage States to fulfil their cooperation obligations under Article 29 of the Tribunal’s Statute[4] by providing a broad range of information relevant to a particular case.[5] However, this deference to States’ interests does not go so far as to supersede a Trial Chamber’s authority to maintain control over the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial.[6] In sum, under Rules 70(G) and 89(D) of the Rules, a Trial Chamber may, as the Trial Chamber did here, assess the conditions placed upon proposed Rule 70 witness testimony and determine, without hearing that testimony, that it may not be admitted on the basis that the Rule 70 conditions would result in substantial unfairness to the trial, which outweighs that testimony’s probative value.

19. The Appeals Chamber further finds that the Prosecution’s citation to the Martić Decision in support of its interpretation of the test under Rules (70G) and 89(D) of the Rules is inapposite. While in that decision the Appeals Chamber similarly considered whether limitations on the cross-examination of witness testimony would result in substantial unfairness to the trial which outweighs its probative value and thereby requires its exclusion under Rule 89(D) of the Rules, the question arose after the testimony had already been admitted by the Trial Chamber and only because of the unexpected death of the witness prior to the close of cross-examination. The Appeals Chamber in the Martić Decision did not address whether proposed witness testimony may be excluded prior to its admission under Rule 89(D) of the Rules because of the need to ensure a fair trial. Nor did it consider possible exclusion of proffered witness testimony because it was subject to Rule 70 conditions.

The Appeals Chamber considered the implications of Security Council Resolution 1503 (2003)[1] and Security Council Resolution 1534 (2004)[2] on on-going trials in light of the 31 December 2008 deadline to complete all trials. It held that when assessing these implications, the overriding consideration must be the strict adherence to the “minimum guarantees afforded to accused persons pursuant to Article 20 of the Tribunal’s Statute”:

24. The Appeals Chamber notes that the remaining Judges expressed the view that the completion of all trials by 31 December 2008 is “more of a target date”[3] and that there was “nothing to suggest that unfair decisions and actions will be taken with regard to cases that are pending on 31 December 2008.”[4] The Appeals Chamber also notes that resolution 1503 urges the Tribunal to formalise a strategy to enable the Tribunal “to achieve its objective” of completing all trials by the end of 2008[5] and calls on the Tribunal “to take all possible measures” in this regard.[6] The Appeals Chamber is of the view that when assessing the implications of resolution 1503 and resolution 1534 to on-going trials, the overriding consideration must be the strict adherence to the minimum guarantees afforded to accused persons pursuant to Article 20 of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Appeals Chamber considers that the remaining Judges properly addressed this overriding consideration and sees no error in their interpretation of their obligations in the context of resolution 1503 and resolution 1534.  The remaining Judges considered that the trial in the Applicants’ case could be completed fairly and expeditiously by 31 December 2008, by using appropriate trial management methods within their discretion and taking reasonable decisions.[7] In the event of the trial not being completed by the end of 2008, the remaining Judges stated that “reasonable decisions will be taken in the interests of justice [and] taking into account the rights of each co-Accused.”[8] The Appeals Chamber finds no error in this approach.

At paras 42-43, the Appeals Chamber held:

42. The Appeals Chamber considers that the continuation of the proceedings with a substitute Judge in a case where witnesses have already been heard does not necessarily infringe on fair trial rights. As the Appeals Chamber previously stated:

[t]here is a preference for live testimony to be heard by each and every judge. But that does not represent an unbending requirement. The Rules and the cases show that exceptions can be made. The exceptions may relate even to evidence involving an assessment of demeanour, various ways being available to assist a new judge to overcome any disadvantages.[1]

43. The Appeals Chamber also considers that, pursuant to Rule 15bis (D) of the Rules, a substitute Judge may only join the bench “after he or she has certified that he or she has familiarised himself or herself with the record of the proceedings.” These safeguards ensure that fair trials rights are not compromised. In the present case, the remaining Judges took into consideration that the substitute Judge will need to review the “records of the proceedings, including the transcripts, audio and video-recordings, to observe the demeanour of the witness” in determining that it would be in the interests of justice to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge.[2]