Right of an appellant to personally address the Appeals Chamber

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Scheduling Order - 05.12.2006 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)

P. 5: CONSIDERING that no statutory or regulatory provision of the Tribunal allows for the “right” of an appellant who is represented by counsel to personally address the Appeals Chamber[1] but […] the Appeals Chamber has, in practice, allowed for such an option as a matter of courtesy to appellants;

FINDING that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate in the Motion that it is in the interests of justice to allow the Appellant to surpass the time allocated to him by the Scheduling Order for the personal address; […]

[1] See Scheduling Order, p. 3; Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions Concerning Restrictive Measures of Detention, 20 September 2006, p. 7. 

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Karadzic's Request to Participate in the Appeal Hearing - 28.02.2018 KARADŽIĆ Radovan

Pages 1-2:

RECALLING that Article 19(4)(d) of the Statute of the Mechanism provides for an alternative between the right to self-representation and the right to legal assistance, but does not entitle an accused or an appellant who is represented by counsel to self-representation;


RECALLING that assigned counsel “shall be responsible for all aspects of defence of [...] accused before the Mechanism”;[2]

CONSIDERING, however, that the Appeals Chamber may exercise its discretion to allow persons other than counsel and co-counsel to make representations before it;


FINDING that it is in the interests of justice to grant Karadžić the right of audience before the Appeals Chamber to present arguments related to the Appeal Grounds;

CONSIDERING that this finding is without prejudice to the opportunity which will be afforded to Karadžić to make a brief personal address to the Appeals Chamber at the end of the hearing of the appeals;

[1] See Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Scheduling Order for Appeals Hearing and Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion of 24 January 2006, 16 November 2006, p. 3. See also Slobodan Milošević v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-54AR73.7, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defense Counsel, 1 November 2004, para. 11.

[2] Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, MICT/5, 14 November 2012, Article 16(B).

[3] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Đorđević, Case No. IT-0587/1-A, Transcript (“T.”) 13 May 2013 pp. 53, 54 (granting right of audience to a legal assistant); Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-A, T. 20 March 2017 p. 116 (granting right of audience to legal consultants assigned pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTY).

Download full document
IRMCT Statute Article 19(4) Other instruments MICT Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel: Article 16(B)