20. […] [T]he Rules do not explicitly regulate whether proceedings may be continued with a substitute Judge following the disqualification of a Judge at a more advanced stage, namely the deliberations stage. The Appeals Chamber observes that the guarantees provided for in Rules 15bis(C) and 15bis(D) of the Rules have been consistently applied or referred to in the present situation.[1]  The Appeals Chamber considers that these Rules are designed to ensure that an accused’s right to a fair trial is sufficiently safeguarded, and that the fair trial guarantees provided for in these Rules apply mutatis mutandis to the present situation. Under Rule 15bis(D) of the Rules, when a decision is taken to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge even though the accused has withheld his consent, such a decision “is subject to appeal directly to a full bench of the Appeals Chamber by either party”.

21. Therefore, for the purposes of the admissibility of the Appeal, and in light of the spirit of these Rules, the Appeals Chamber considers that the same protection as that provided for by Rule 15bis(D) of the Rules should apply in the present case. The Appeals Chamber further observes that the interests of neither Šešelj nor the Prosecution are prejudiced by the adjudication of this Appeal.

22. In these particular circumstances, the Appeals Chamber holds that the Impugned Decision is subject to appeal directly to a full bench of the Appeals Chamber.

[…]

35.  […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that a decision to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge is a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber owes deference:

The discretion of the Trial Chamber meant that the Trial Chamber had the right to establish the precise point within a margin of appreciation at which a continuation [of the proceedings] should be ordered. In that decision-making process, the Appeals Chamber can intervene only in limited circumstances, as, for example, where it is of the view that there was a failure to exercise the discretion, or that the Trial Chamber failed to take into account a material consideration or took into account an immaterial one and that the substance of its decision has in consequence been affected. It is not enough that the Appeals Chamber would have exercised the discretion differently. However, even if a trial court has not otherwise erred, the appellate “court must, if necessary, examine anew the relevant facts and circumstances to exercise a discretion by way of review if it thinks that the [Judges’] ruling may have resulted in injustice to the [appellant]”.[2]

36. In reaching its decision, the Trial Chamber must determine whether, taking all the circumstances into account, the continuation of proceedings would serve the interests of justice.[3] The parties “bear no burden of proving that continuing or not continuing the proceedings would better serve the interests of justice”,[4] and accordingly taking into account whether a party has discharged this burden would be an immaterial consideration constituting an error.[5] Other errors previously identified by the Appeals Chamber include requiring the substitute Judge to evaluate whether the record itself – including the availability of video- or audio-recording – is compatible with the requirements of a fair trial.[6]

37.  The Appeals Chamber further recalls that:

There is a preference for live testimony to be heard by each and every judge. But that does not represent an unbending requirement. The Rules and the cases show that exceptions can be made. The exceptions may relate even to evidence involving an assessment of demeanour, various ways being available to assist a new judge to overcome any disadvantages.[7]

In light of the discretion inherent in a decision to continue proceedings with a substitute Judge, the Appeals Chamber has “not consider[ed] it useful to lay down a hard and fast relationship between the proportion of witnesses who have already testified and the exercise of the power to order a continuation of the trial with a substitute judge”, as “[t]he stage reached in each case need not always be the same”.[8]

[…]

41. The Appeals Chamber therefore considers that neither the Statute nor the Rules prevented the Trial Chamber from exercising its discretion to determine, within the circumstances of the particular case before it, whether it would serve the interests of justice to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge. […]

[…]

44. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that the need for a substitute Judge to certify his or her familiarity with the record is among the “safeguards ensur[ing] that fair trial rights are not compromised”.[9] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber has previously confirmed that proceedings could continue even in the absence of video-recordings of previous testimony for the substitute Judge to review.[10] […] With regard to the possibility of recalling witnesses, this too has been previously treated by the Appeals Chamber as being a material consideration to be taken into account.[11]

The Appeals Chamber held that Rule 15bis(D) only relates to the remaining Judges’ decision to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge, but not to the challenge of the subsequent exercise of discretion by the newly composed Trial Chamber to resume proceedings.

127. Rule 15 bis(D) of the Rules provides that if an accused withholds his consent to the continuation of the proceedings with a substitute Judge pursuant to Rule 15 bis(C) of the Rules, the remaining Judges may nonetheless decide to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge if this would serve the interests of justice. It further specifies: […]

128. The Appeals Chamber agrees with Amicus Curiae that the appeal provided for under Rule 15 bis(D) of the Rules only relates to the remaining Judges’ decision to continue the proceedings with a substitute Judge, but not to the challenge of the subsequent exercise of discretion by the substitute Judge and/or the newly composed Trial Chamber to resume proceedings. The Trial Chamber, by continuing with the case with the substitute Judge, impliedly acquiesced in the certification that Judge Hanoteau was familiar with the case to the requisite degree. Amicus Curiae fails to bring forward any evidence that Judge Hanoteau had not sufficiently familiarised himself with the case to be able to properly discharge his functions. Consequently, Amicus Curiae does not demonstrate that the Trial Chamber abused its discretion in continuing the trial after receipt of the certificate of Judge Hanoteau and thus rendered the trial unfair. This sub-ground is dismissed. 

23. The discretion of the Trial Chamber meant that the Trial Chamber had the right to establish the precise point within a margin of appreciation at which a continuation should be ordered. In that decision-making process, the Appeals Chamber can intervene only in limited circumstances, as, for example, where it is of the view that there was a failure to exercise the discretion, or that the Trial Chamber failed to take into account a material consideration or took into account an immaterial one and that the substance of its decision has in consequence been affected. It is not enough that the Appeals Chamber would have exercised the discretion differently. However, even if a trial court has not otherwise erred, the appellate “court must, if necessary, examine anew the relevant facts and circumstances to exercise a discretion by way of review if it thinks that the judge’s ruling may have resulted in injustice to the appellants.”[1]

[…]

27. The Appeals Chamber does not consider it useful to lay down a hard and fast relationship between the proportion of witnesses who have already testified and the exercise of the power to order a continuation of the trial with a substitute judge. The discretion to continue the trial with a substitute judge is a discretion; the Appeals Chamber can only interfere with the way in which the discretion has been exercised if it has been incorrectly exercised in the circumstances mentioned above.  The stage reached in each case need not always be the same. […]

140. Turning to Nyiramasuhuko’s contention that Judge Bossa could not assess the demeanour of witnesses based on the audio-recordings, the Appeals Chamber is of the view that the importance of observing first-hand the demeanour of witnesses in court cannot be discounted on the ground that audio-recordings exist. Although the preference for live testimony to be heard by each judge does not represent an “unbending requirement”,[1] the Appeals Chamber is not convinced that audio‑recordings alone allow a substitute judge to thoroughly assess all aspects of the witness’s demeanour in court, in particular when the judge is not proficient in the language spoken by the witness.[2]

[…]

148.  The Appeals Chamber is of the view that transcripts or audio recordings of a witness’s testimony in court do not necessarily always allow a judge to assess thoroughly the witness’s possible aggressiveness, reluctance to answer questions, lack of emotion, silences, and arrogance. […]

164.  The Appeals Chamber reiterates that, while there is a clear preference for live testimony to be heard by each and every judge, this preference does not represent an unbending requirement.[3] […]