The Appeals Chamber held that joinder of cases will not adversely affect Čermak and Markač’s right to fair trial with undue delay, due to the fact that, even if they have been preparing longer than Gotovina for their trial, there is no start date for the trial in the immediate future.[1]  With respect to Čermak and Markač’s argument that Gotovina’s case adds complexity to their case and will lead to a long and procedurally complicated trial in violation of their right to a fair trial without undue delay, the Appeals Chamber held at para. 44:

44. […] Two separate trials, whether conducted simultaneously or otherwise, are still likely to require more court hours in total than one joint trial and require more judicial time and resources. Furthermore, two separate trials will likely lead to duplication of efforts. In addition, in light of the significant overlap the Trial Chamber found between the two cases on the basis of the amended indictments, Čermak and Markač fail to demonstrate that a joint trial with Gotovina will lead to a long and procedurally complicated trial. […] The Trial Chamber reasonably exercised its discretion in finding that overall, in this case, joinder will promote judicial economy and this weighs in favour of granting joinder.