19. The Appeals Chamber has further elaborated that a conflict of interest arises “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]

16.    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] Safeguarding the interests of justice requires the prevention of potential conflicts of interest before they arise.[2] If a Chamber determines that the risks and damage that could be caused are such as to jeopardise the right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial or proper administration of justice, it takes the appropriate measure to restore and protect the fairness of trial and the integrity of the proceedings.[3] It has been held that such measures can include ordering the withdrawal of counsel.[4]

28.    Finally, the Appeals Chamber considers that, in a case of this kind, “safeguarding the interests of justice requires not only the existence of a mechanism for removing conflicts of interests after they have arisen but also the prevention of such conflicts before they arise”.[5] It was hence not unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to find that the dual representation by Prodanović and Sloković risks to considerably prejudice the Appellant as it would limit the choice of defence strategies due to his Counsel’s duty of loyalty to Ademi and that they therefore would not be able to serve best the Appellant’s interests.

This interlocutory appeal decision turned on whether it constituted a conflict of interest for Mr. Jovan Simić to act as counsel for both Željko Mejakić, one of the accused in the case of Prosecutor v. Mejakić et al., and Dragoljub Prcać, an accused in the case of Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al. The Prosecution submitted that should the accused Prcać be called to testify in the Mejakić et al. case, it would be difficult for Mr. Simić, as counsel for both accused, to reconcile his duty to protect the interests of each accused. The Appeals Chamber held as follows:

7. The Registrar has the primary responsibility of determining matters relating to the assignment of counsel under the legal aid system. The Trial Chamber, however, considered that it had a statutory obligation to ensure a fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings, and that from this obligation it derived the power to decide on the Prosecution’s motion alleging a conflict of interest.[1] The approach of the Trial Chamber is consistent with the Appeals Chamber’s decision in the case Prosecutor v. Blagojević of 7 November 2003.[2] In that decision, the Appeals Chamber confirmed that the Trial Chamber has an inherent power to ensure that the trial of an accused is fair. However, the Appeals Chamber warned that in exercising this power the Trial Chamber cannot appropriate for itself a power that is conferred elsewhere.[3] The Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel[4] does not provide any specific procedure for the removal of Defence Counsel in the case of a conflict of interest at the request of the Prosecution, and as such, the Trial Chamber could rely on its inherent power to review the assignment of Mr. Simić.

8. The right to choose counsel is a fundamental right of the accused and is recognized by Article 21(4) (b) and (d) of the Statute of the International Tribunal (“Statute”). However, this right is not without limits. The Appeals Chamber has on several occasions stated that “the right to free legal assistance by counsel does not confer the right to counsel of one’s own choosing.”[5] One of the limits to the accused’s choice is a conflict of interest affecting his counsel. Under Article 14 of the Code of Conduct,[6] a counsel may not represent a client when this representation affects or can affect the representation of another client. [….]

This requirement is reflected by Article 16 (E) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel:

E.         No counsel shall be assigned to more than one suspect or accused at a time, unless an assignment to more than one suspect or accused would neither cause prejudice to the defence of either accused, nor a potential conflict of interest. [THIS PROVISION WAS AMENDED WITH THE ENTRY INTO FORCE ON 11 JULY 2006 OF THE DIRECTIVE ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL, IT/73 Rev 11. AS AMENDED.]

Mr. Simić had acknowledged a potential conflict of interest and, following the procedure laid out under Article 14 of the Code of Conduct, obtained the written consent of both Mr. Mejakić and Mr. Prcać to represent each of them.

[…]

12. The Appeals Chamber finds that a conflict of interests does exist at the present stage of  the proceedings. It is not contested that Mr. Mejakić was the direct superior of Mr. Prcać in the Omarska camp. Mr. Mejakić is charged with crimes committed in the Omarska camp under Article 7 (1) of the Statute for participating in a joint criminal enterprise. In addition, he is charged under Article 7 (3) of the Statute, on the basis that he was the commander of the camp and had effective control over the guard shift commanders, camp guards, and other persons working within or visiting the Omarska camp. Further, the Prosecution claims that Mr. Prcać has given evidence incriminating Mr. Mejakić in an interview with the Prosecution in the Kvočka et al. case. It was for this reason that the Trial Chamber considered Mr. Prcać’s evidence significant and allowed the Prosecution to include Mr. Prcać in its witness list.[7]

[…]

14. The Appeals Chamber further finds that, if the conflict of interest regarding the representation of Mr. Prcać and Mr. Mejakić is not resolved at the present stage of proceedings, the administration of justice may be irreversibly prejudiced. The Appeals Chamber considers that the conflict of interest is an important one. The Trial Chamber noted in its First Decision that Mr.  Mejakić did not deny that he was in a position of authority at the Omarska camp, and that he acknowledged that Mr. Prcać spent some time there under his command.[8] Mr. Mejakić is charged with command responsibility under Article 7(3) of the Statute. Mr. Prcać may give evidence on the command structure of the Omarska camp as well as on the particular offences committed in this camp. The evidence given by Mr. Prcać may therefore have a significant impact on the trial of Mr. Mejakić.

15. The decision by Mr. Prcać whether to cooperate with the Prosecution has to be taken presently, and it may impact on the potential benefits for Mr. Prcać and on the conduct of the Mejakić trial. Moreover, the conflict of interest may influence the Defence strategy of Mr. Mejakić, for example, by preventing his counsel from calling certain witnesses in order not to prejudice the interests of Mr. Prcać. There is finally the risk that Mr. Simić might withdraw in the course of the trial because of the conflict of interest, thus delaying the proceedings. For these reasons also the Appeals Chamber finds that the representation of both Mr. Mejakić and Mr. Prcać by Mr. Simić is likely to irreversibly prejudice the administration of justice.

Pages 1-2:

BEING SEISED of a motion filed on 30 November 2017, in which Robinson seeks to withdraw as counsel for Ngirabatware, citing regulations governing professional conduct of defence counsel related to discontinuation of representation and conflict of interest;[1]

 […]

NOTING that, pursuant to Rule 43(G) of the Rules, under exceptional circumstances, at the request of assigned counsel, the Appeals Chamber may instruct the Registrar to replace the counsel upon good cause being shown and after being satisfied that the request is not designed to delay the proceedings;

CONSIDERING that the information contained in Annex A to the Motion demonstrates the existence of exceptional circumstances, which constitute good cause for the replacement of Robinson as counsel for Ngirabatware;