86. The Appeals Chamber recalls that pursuant to Article 16(C) of the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, “[a]cting under the authority of lead counsel, the co-counsel may deal with all stages of the proceedings and all matters arising out of the defence of the suspect or accused.” The Appeals Chamber has previously considered that when the accused is represented, the presence of his lead counsel or co-counsel at trial is essential.[1] Thus, a lead counsel who absents himself has the duty to ensure that his co-counsel is present at trial.[2] The Trial Chamber therefore did not err in holding that one of the purposes of Article 16(C) of the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel is to allow for the accused to be represented at trial hearings by a co-counsel in the event that the lead counsel is unable to attend.[3] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber explicitly took into account that Pavković’s lead counsel and co-counsel were in contact with each other, so that the co-counsel could continue to act under the authority of the lead counsel in compliance with the relevant requirement of Rule 16(C) of the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel.[4] In light of these considerations, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber did not err in holding that the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel allowed for representation by co-counsel acting under the authority of lead counsel in the absence of the latter.

See also paras 87-88.