27. In the Galić Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber confirmed that an accused has the right to appear as a witness in his defence.[1] The Appeals Chamber equally determined that this right does not prevent a Trial Chamber from exercising its authority to control the conduct of a trial by imposing conditions on the right to appear as a witness, provided these conditions do not unreasonably interfere with the right to testify.[2]

28. In the present case, the only condition imposed on Blagojević’s right to testify was that his assigned counsel would be responsible for examining him. The Appeals Chamber notes that Blagojević stated that he would answer questions put to him by the parties that “incorporate[ed] the examination-in-chief and cross-examination”[3] and that he needed assistance in preparing for his testimony.[4] In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to require Blagojević to be examined by his assigned counsel if he chose to testify, notwithstanding his persistent refusal to communicate with Mr. Karnavas. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Trial Chamber made extensive efforts to ensure that Blagojević was advised of the consequences of testifying and was given the opportunity to testify or otherwise be heard before the end of the case.[5] It was Blagojević’s unjustified and unilateral refusal to communicate with his assigned counsel that resulted in his failure to testify, rather than any action or unjustified restriction imposed on his right by the Trial Chamber.

29. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the conditions placed by the Trial Chamber on Blagojević’s right to testify on his own behalf, namely that his counsel conduct the examination, so unreasonably interfered with his right to testify that his right to a fair trial was infringed.