29. […] the Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant should have raised the issue of the Co-Counsel’s competence at trial. However, as noted above, the Appellant is not precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. As such, he must establish on appeal that his counsel’s incompetence was so manifest as to oblige the Trial Chamber to intervene and he must further demonstrate that the Trial Chamber’s failure to act occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

44. […] The Appeals Chamber considers that the manner in which counsel structures a cross-examination is a matter of defence strategy which rests squarely within the discretion of the defence. This is consistent with the general principle that it is is not for the Trial Chamber to dictate to a party how to conduct its case.[3] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber cannot analyse defence strategy in a vacuum after the completion of trial, nor would it be appropriate for the Appeals Chamber to do so. It follows that it is not sufficient for the Appellant merely to assert after the completion of trial that his Co-Counsel was incompetent because he did not adopt a different approach during the cross-examination of a given witness. At a minimum, the Appellant should demonstrate how a different approach would have had a positive impact on the verdict.