24. […] Indeed, Prlić had already shown in September 2005 that a divergence on personal and political views might have ensued at the time of the questioning; the Trial Chamber concluded, however, that such a divergence did not create a legal conflict of interest.[1] Even the additional material brought at the trial stage on possible personal and political disagreements between Prlić and Salahović did not convince the Trial Chamber that a conflict of interest existed. In practice, it is unclear how the defence strategy could be influenced by the fact that Salahović was Prlić’s counsel.[2]

25. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that it fell within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to conclude that, in light of the circumstances of the case and the acquaintance of the two individuals in question, their divergence of political and personal views in the indictment period would not adversely affect Salahović’s professional judgement and amount, as such, to the legal conflict of interest posited by Prlić at the time of the questioning. Prlić Appeal in this respect is therefore dismissed.

26. […] without linking the differing political and personal interests and activities with any actual or potential effects these differences would have on Salahović’s “duty of loyalty to … put [the interests of justice] before his own”,[3] a trier of fact could reasonably find that no conflict of interest was established. Prlić Appeal in this respect is therefore dismissed.