Objective adequacy
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Duration of Defence Case - 29.01.2013 |
KARADŽIĆ Radovan (IT-95-5/18-AR73.10) |
|
|
16. Turning to the parties’ central contentions, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, is satisfied that Karadžić has not demonstrated that 300 courtroom hours is an objectively inadequate amount of time for his defence. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, while the Trial Chamber was required to allocate sufficient time for Karadžić to present his defence,[1] it also has an obligation to ensure that proceedings do not suffer undue delays.[2] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the allocation of time for the presentation of the defence case is based on a contextual analysis of the specific factors relevant to the case.[3] Considering that the Prosecution bears the burden of proof,[4] an allocation of time reasonably proportional to that granted to the Prosecution will often result in less time being granted to the defence for the presentation of its case.[5] The Appeals Chamber recalls that Karadžić and the Prosecution were each granted 300 hours to present their cases,[6] and further recalls that Karadžić has already used more than twice as much time as the Prosecution during the presentation of the Prosecution case.[7] In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, is not persuaded that Karadžić has demonstrated any objective unfairness in the Impugned Decision. [1] Orić Decision [Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-AR73.2, Interlocutory Decision on Length of Defence Case, 20 July 2005], para. 8. [2] Prlić et al. Decision, para. 16. [3] Prlić et al. Decision, para. 35. [4] See Statute, Article 21(3); Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Judgement, 16 November 2012, para. 63. [5] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-T, Judgement, 6 September 2011 (public with confidential Annex C), Annex A, paras 18 (allocation of 335 hours for the Prosecution’s case), 23 (allocation of 180 hours for the defence case); Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 March 2000 (originally filed in French; the English translation was filed on 20 April 2000), para. 53 (allocation of 75 trial days for the Prosecution’s case and 60 trial days for the defence case). [6] See T. 6 October 2009 p. 467 (granting 300 hours for the Prosecution’s case); Impugned Decision, para. 14 (granting Karadžić 300 hours for his defence case). [7] Impugned Decision, para. 9. While Karadžić contests the relevance of this comparison, (see Appeal, paras 36-39; Reply, paras 14-16) he does not challenge the accuracy of the Trial Chamber’s calculation that his cross-examinations of Prosecution witnesses took two and a half times as long as the Prosecution’s direct examinations (see generally Appeal; Reply). |
||