16. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber notes that proceedings in this appeal have been delayed for a significant time,[1] notably as a result of changes in the representation of the Appellant.[2] The Appeals Chamber also notes that the request for withdrawal of Co-Counsel came at a late stage of the proceedings, after the Appellant has filed his Reply Brief. At this stage, the introduction of a new co-counsel, unfamiliar with the case, will inevitably result in undue delay,[3] given that this person will require some time to get familiar with the case and its documents.[4] An unnecessary replacement of the current Co-Counsel who is thoroughly familiar with the case and who has already dedicated hundreds of hours to the Appellant’s appeal would be detrimental to the Appellant’s right to be tried fairly and expeditiously.[5] The Appeals Chamber thus finds that the Registrar and the President did not err in taking these factors into account.[6]

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.