11. […] However, the Appeals Chambers of both this Tribunal and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) have also held that the right to be present at trial is not absolute.[1] In the Zigiranyirazo Decision, this Appeals Chamber held that an accused person can waive or forfeit the right to be present at trial.[2] The Appeals Chamber noted that Rule 80(B) of the Rules allows a Trial Chamber to remove an accused for persistent disruption of the proceedings. It further held that in determining to restrict any statutory right of an accused, the Appeals Chamber must take into account “the proportionality principle, pursuant to which any restriction on a fundamental right must be in service of a sufficiently important objective and must impair the right no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.”[3]

15. The Appeals Chamber agrees that the right to an expeditious trial as a right guaranteed to all accused by the Statute of the Tribunal was a relevant consideration for the Trial Chamber in balancing whether or not to proceed in the absence of the Appellant. However, in the circumstances of this complex and lengthy case, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the three day delay to the trial was sufficient to outweigh the statutory right of the Appellant to be present at his own trial when the absence of the Appellant was due to no fault of his own. […]