The Appeals Chamber recalled that Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute provides the accused before the International Tribunal with the presumptive right of self representation. However, this right is not absolute and can be restricted where a defendant’s self-representation is substantially and persistently obstructing the proper and expeditious conduct of his trial.[1] The right of  self-representation can be restricted irrespectively from the actual intention of the accused to obstruct the proceedings.[2] The Appeals Chamber recalled that, for the right to self-representation to be restricted, it is upon the Trial Chamber to decide

“Whether the appropriate circumstances exist and what they are is a matter for the Trial Chamber to determine on a case by case basis when considering the particular facts of a case as a whole.”[3]

In view of this principle, the Appeals Chamber affirmed that the Trial Chamber, in order to assign a Counsel to an accused who chose to self-represent himself, did not have to find that the accused’s behaviour the Trial Chamber had been “extremely disruptive to the point of rendering continuation of the proceedings practically impossible” but that “[a]ll that the Trial Chamber was required to do was find that appropriate circumstances, rising to the level of substantial and persistent obstruction to the proper and expeditious conduct of the trial exist, thereby warranting restriction of Šešelj’s right to self-representation.”[4]

19. There is no doubt that, by choosing to conduct his own defence, the Accused deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal defence team could have provided. A defendant who decides to represent himself relinquishes many of the benefits associated with representation by counsel. The legal system’s respect for a defendant’s decision to forgo assistance of counsel must be reciprocated by the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring.[1] Where an accused elects self-representation, the concerns about the fairness of the proceedings are, of course, heightened, and a Trial Chamber must be particularly attentive to its duty of ensuring that the trial be fair.

16. The Appeals Chamber parts ways with the Trial Chamber, however, in its assessment of the Order on Modalities.[1]  In spelling out the future working relationship between Milošević and Assigned Counsel, the Order sharply restricts Milošević’s ability to participate in the conduct of his case in any way.  The Order makes his ability to participate at all contingent on a case-by-case, discretionary decision by the Trial Chamber.[2]  It implies that he would only occasionally – “where appropriate” – be permitted to examine witnesses.[3]  And it indicates that, even where he is permitted to examine a witness, he may do so only after Assigned Counsel had already completed their examination.  In every way, then, the Order relegates Milošević to a visibly second-tier role in the trial.

17. These sharp restrictions, unfortunately, were grounded on a fundamental error of law: the Trial Chamber failed to recognize that any restrictions on Milošević’s right to represent himself must be limited to the minimum extent necessary to protect the Tribunal’s interest in assuring a reasonably expeditious trial.  When reviewing restrictions on fundamental rights such as this one, many jurisdictions are guided by some variant of a basic proportionality principle:  any restriction of a fundamental right must be in service of “a sufficiently important objective,” and must “impair the right . . . no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.”[4] Similarly, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows some restriction of certain civil rights where “necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others,”[5] the United Nations Human Rights Committee has observed that any such restrictions “must conform to the principle of proportionality; . . . they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.”[6]  And the ICTY itself has been guided by a “general principle of proportionality” in assessing defendants’ suitability for provisional release, noting that a restriction on the fundamental right to liberty is acceptable only when it is “(1) suitable, (2) necessary and when (3) its degree and scope remain in a reasonable relationship to the envisaged target.”[7]

18. The Appeals Chamber considers that a proportionality principle of this sort was clearly called for here.  The excessiveness of the Trial Chamber’s restrictions is apparent for at least three reasons:  (1) the medical reports relied on by the Trial Chamber explicitly rejected the notion that Milošević’s condition is permanent;[8] (2) there was no evidence that Milošević had suffered from any health problems since late July; and (3) Milošević made a vigorous two-day opening statement without interruption or apparent difficulty.  Despite these indications of possible improvement in Milošević’s condition, however, the Trial Chamber failed to impose a carefully calibrated set of restrictions on Milošević’s trial participation. Given the need for proper respect of a right as fundamental as this one, this failure was an improper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.[9]

26. The fundamental issue underlying the Appeal is the relation between Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute and the Trial Chamber’s appointment of standby counsel to Karadžić. Article 21(4) of the Statute reads, in relevant part:

In the determination of any charge against the accused pursuant to the present Statute, the accused shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(d) […] to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing […]

By their ordinary meaning, the rights provided for in Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute “stand in binary opposition”.[1] Accordingly, Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute does not provide an accused with the minimum guarantee of both the right to self-represent and the right to counsel of his own choosing; only the right to one or the other. Karadžić has elected to remain self-represented[2] and thus does not enjoy any rights that are derived from choosing to be represented by legal counsel.[3]

27. Karadžić’s contention that he should be accorded the rights of those who choose to be represented by legal counsel because the Trial Chamber has signalled its intention to override his election to self-represent is unpersuasive. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal establishes that the right to self-represent is not absolute and may be subject to certain limitations.[4] A Trial Chamber may restrict the right to self-representation in appropriate circumstances where “a defendant’s self-representation is substantially and persistently obstructing the proper and expeditious conduct of his trial”.[5] It is under this rubric of curtailing Karadžić’s right to self-representation that the Trial Chamber issued its Decision on Appointment of Counsel.[6] If the Trial Chamber ultimately decides to assign counsel to represent Karadžić’s interests at trial, it will not be because the Trial Chamber is recognizing a voluntary decision on behalf of Karadžić to cease his self-representation. Instead, it will be because the Trial Chamber has found that Karadžić’s persistent obstructive behaviour has made it necessary, in the interests of justice, to limit his right to self-representation by assigning counsel to represent his interests.

28. […] The text and structure of the Directive, Rules and Article 21 of the Statute confirm that the Directive does not apply to individuals who have chosen to self-represent. The Preamble of the Directive explicitly references Article 21 of the Statute, which encompasses the binary opposition of self-representation and appointment of counsel. In addition, the Directive’s text emphasizes that its focus is on the process of providing “legal assistance to indigent suspects or accused”. It also references Rule 45 of the Rules, which again focuses on the assignment of counsel to indigent suspects and accused. Self-represented individuals, whose ability to pay for counsel is by definition irrelevant, do not fall within its compass. By contrast, assignment of counsel to self-represented individuals is addressed by Rule 45ter of the Rules, which is not within the Directive’s scope.

29. Insofar as the Registrar took guidance from certain provisions of the Directive, his exercise of discretion did not render the Directive’s procedures binding on him with regard to the appointment of standby counsel for Karadžić.[12] As the Trial Chamber correctly noted, “there exists no specific set of guidelines to be followed by the Registrar” in relation to the appointment of counsel to represent the interests of an obstructive self-represented accused.[13] Considering related legal authorities in developing a procedure to select standby counsel, where such procedures were not outlined in any binding manner ex ante, was well within the Registrar’s discretion, and did not render those legal authorities binding.

Pages 2-3

CONSIDERING that Šešelj has elected to represent himself and that he has the right to self‑representation at the appeal stage;

[…]

CONSIDERING that, in view of Šešelj’s current position not to appear at the appeal hearing, the Appeals Chamber must take appropriate measures to ensure that his interests are represented at the upcoming appeal hearing in order to ensure the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings;

CONSIDERING that, prior to restricting Šešelj’s right to self-representation, the Appeals Chamber must issue a warning that is specific in nature;

CONSIDERING that, if [ešelj maintains his intention not to attend the appeal hearing, it will be in the interests of justice to instruct the Registrar pursuant to Rules 46 and 131 of the Rules to assign a standby counsel to represent Šešelj’s interests in the event that Šešelj is not present at the appeal hearing;

CONSIDERING that any restrictions on Šešelj’s right to represent himself must be limited to the minimum extent necessary to protect the Mechanism’s interest in a reasonably expeditious resolution of the appeal before it;

CONSIDERING, therefore, that, in order to preserve Šešelj’s right to self-representation, the mandate of the standby counsel shall be strictly limited to ensuring that Šešelj’s procedural rights at the hearing are protected if he does not attend, and shall not extend to making a response on [ešelj’s behalf on the substance of the Prosecution’s appeal;

[…]

CONSIDERING that Šešelj should be given an opportunity to reconsider his position not to attend the appeal hearing prior to instructing the Registrar to assign standby counsel;[5]