Proper use of the Tribunal’s resources

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Withdrawal of Co-Counsel - 23.11.2006 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)

15. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the Registrar and the President properly took into account other particular circumstances of the case, such as the potential delay in the proceedings as well as the proper use of the Tribunal’s resources.[1] Indeed, in the circumstances where no misconduct or manifest professional negligence on the part of the counsel is established, factors such as the efficient management of resources are directly relevant to the decision not to permit withdrawal of counsel.[2] […]

[1] See Akayesu Appeal Judgement, para. 60; Prosecutor v. Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Decision by the Registrar re: Assignment of Counsel to Vinko Martinović, 19 May 2003, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilović, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, Decision by the Registrar to Withdraw the Assignment of Mr. Caglar as Counsel to the Accused and to Assign Mr. Hodžić, 18 February 2003, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ranko Česić, Case No. IT-95-10/1-PT, and Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Decision by the Registrar, 6 January 2003, p. 2; The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko & Arsène Shalom Ntahobali, Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, Decision on Ntahobali’s Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, 22 June 2001, paras 17-19; Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision on Request by Accused Mucić for Assignment of New Counsel, 24 June 1996, para. 5.

[2] Blagojević Appeal Decision, para. 32.

Download full document
Other instruments Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel (ICTR): Article 19.