Instructions from the accused

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Counsel \| Instructions from the accused	Appeal Judgement - 28.11.2007	NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A)
124. The Appeals Chamber further notes that it was the Appellant who instructed his Counsel “not to represent [him] in this trial”, as is evident from the aforementioned excerpt from Appellant Barayagwiza’s statement of 23 October 2000,[1] his letters of 23 and 24 October 2000[2] and the motion to withdraw Counsel for Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza.[3] The Appellant does not, moreover, contest that he gave such instruction to his Counsel. In the circumstances, the Appeals Chamber cannot find that the Trial Chamber should have compelled them to be more active in defending the Appellant. Such an intervention would not have been consistent with the role of a Trial Chamber of the Tribunal.[4] The appeal on this point is accordingly dismissed. 125. […] In effect, the Appellant’s attitude amounted to a waiver of the right to examine or to have examined the witnesses who were being heard at the time.[5] [See also para. 165 of the Appeals Judgement] show footnotes [1] See supra, para. 113. [2] Letters from Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza dated 23 and 24 October 2000 respectively, attached to the [Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel for Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza] of 26 October 2000. In the first letter, addressed to Presiding Judge Pillay, Appellant Barayagwiza states: “Under no circumstances are they authorized to represent me in any respect whatsoever in this trial”. In the second letter, he reiterates: “[m]y counsels are instructed not to represent me in that trial”. [3] [Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel for Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza], 26 October 2000, paras. 2-4, 8. [4] As the Appellant himself acknowledges (see, for example, Barayagwiza Appellant’s Brief, para. 74), the proceedings at the Tribunal are essentially adversarial and it is the parties who are primarily responsible for the conduct of the debate. A Trial Chamber cannot dictate to a party how to conduct its case. [5] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that the ECHR recognized that an accused can waive his right to examine or cross-examine a witness. See, inter alia, Vaturi v. France, No. 75699/01, ECHR (first section), Judgement of 13 April 2006, para. 53, and Craxi v Italy, No. 34896/97, ECHR (first section), Judgement of 5 December 2002, paras. 90-91. Download full document
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Accused represented by Counsel \| Assistance of counsel \| Communication with Counsel \| Counsel \| Instructions from the accused \| Judgement \| Participation by video-conference \| Physical presence \| Representation by co-counsel \| Role of counsel \| Pronouncement of Judgement	Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Postpone Pronouncement of Judgement - 28.05.2021	MLADIĆ Ratko (MICT-13-56-A)
Page 3 RECALLING that counsel have an obligation to represent their client and to comply with orders of the Appeals Chamber,[16] and that, where the client is represented by counsel and co-counsel, either one may assume the responsibility for participating in proceedings;[17] […] CONSIDERING that, notwithstanding Co-Counsel’s unavailability, the Defence has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Mladić or his Lead Counsel cannot be present for the Pronouncement of Judgement, in court or via videoconference;[19] […] CONSIDERING that […] Mr. Mladić has been able to communicate with his legal team and provide instructions following the issuance of the Scheduling Order, and in doing so he, inter alia, “spoke definitively” and “provided his unwavering position”;[21] FINDING that, in light of the considerations above, the Defence has failed to justify the request to stay the Pronouncement of Judgement and postpone it until a time when both counsel can be present in court in person with Mr. Mladić; […] show footnotes [16] See [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A,] Decision on a Defence Motion to Reconsider the “Decision on Defence Submissions”, 20 August 2020 (“Decision of 20 August 2020”), p. 3, n. 17; [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. MICT-13-56-A,] Decision on Defence Submissions, 14 August 2020 (“Decision of 14 August 2020”), p. 5, n. 30 and references cited therein. [17] See Decision of 20 August 2020, p. 3, n. 17; Decision of 14 August 2020, p. 5, n. 31 and references cited therein. [19] [Footnote omitted]. [21] [Footnote omitted]. Download full document		IRMCT Rule Rule 144(D)