16. All Appellants submit that the rights of the accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Statute should not be sacrificed to ensure the expeditiousness of proceedings.[1]  The Appeals Chamber recalls that, pursuant to Rules 73bis and 73ter of the Rules, the Trial Chamber is required to establish the number of witnesses each party may call and the amount of time allotted to each party. Specifically, Rule 73ter(E) of the Rules provides that, after having heard the defence and having reviewed the Rule 65ter submissions of each accused, the Trial Chamber shall determine the time available to the defence for presenting evidence. In exercising the discretionary power to allocate time, a Trial Chamber has the responsibility to ensure that “the proceedings do not suffer undue delays and that the trial is completed within a reasonable time, which is recognized as a fundamental right of due process under international human rights law.”[2] Recognizing that excessive limitations of time may also compromise the due process rights of the accused, the Appeals Chamber has previously held that the considerations of judicial economy should never impinge on the rights of the parties to a fair trial.[3] In particular, the time granted to an accused under Rule 73ter of the Rules must be reasonably proportional to the time allocated to the Prosecution, and objectively adequate to permit the Accused to set forth his case in a manner consistent with his rights under Article 21 of the Statute.[4]

19. The Appeals Chamber considers that a “purely arithmetical calculation” for the allocation of time to the Defence may constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion. As noted in the Orić Decision, “a principle of basic proportionality, rather than a strict principle of mathematical equality, generally governs the relationship between the time and witnesses allocated to the two sides”.[5] However, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the Impugned Decision was based on such an arithmetic division of time.

23. The Appeals Chamber notes that Rule 92bis to 92quater are aimed at ensuring the efficient presentation of evidence at trial and may be relied upon in lieu of viva voce evidence where it does not impact upon the fairness of the proceedings. In assessing the amount of time reasonably required for each Accused to present his case, the Trial Chamber was entitled to assume that the parties would present their cases as efficiently as possible and take advantage of the options available to them to reduce the time for presenting evidence, especially if repetitive or peripheral. In light of the Trial Chamber’s familiarity with the case to be presented by the Defence, it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to consider that the Defence could make use of Rules 92bis and 92ter of the Rules in relation to some of the witnesses each intended to call.

25. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s decision to assess the relevance of proposed testimony prior to its presentation in evidence falls within the discretion accorded to the Trial Chamber in its management of the trial. There is no prohibition against a Trial Chamber’s  considering that some of the evidence sought to be presented will be repetitive when assessing, in application of Rule 73ter(E) and on the basis of the 65ter List presented by an accused, the time necessary for the fair presentation of the Defence case. The Appeals Chamber considers that this method is not only reasonable, but also presents the advantage of certainty, enabling the Defence to organize its strategy on the basis of the time allocated to it. The Appeals Chamber further notes that the Trial Chamber clarified in the Impugned Decision that it would adopt a flexible approach and, should the Defence establish that additional time was necessary, it would grant additional time.[6]  Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the approach adopted by the Trial Chamber.

20. […] The Appeals Chamber is similarly unconvinced by Karadžić’s contention that the Trial Chamber’s decision to limit the length of his defence, on the basis that evidence he proposed to adduce was irrelevant, demonstrated a “double standard” applied to his detriment, given the large scope of the Prosecution’s case.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber granted Karadžić the same courtroom time as it granted the Prosecution,[2] and further notes the discretion accorded to the Trial Chamber to “assess the relevance of proposed testimony prior to its presentation”.[3] In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber considers that Karadžić has not demonstrated any erroneous “double standard” by the Trial Chamber.[4] 

21. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Impugned Decision does not explicitly address Karadžić’s contention that his particular defence strategy involves disputing “everything except the weather”, and thus requires extensive courtroom time. However the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that this omission constituted an error on the part of the Trial Chamber. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a Trial Chamber’s decision not to explicitly refer to a specific fact or contention does not necessarily demonstrate a failure to consider that issue. In addition, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber considered, inter alia, the duration and extent of Karadžić’s cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses, a consideration that suggests the Trial Chamber took into account Karadžić’s defence strategy when determining the amount of time allocated for the presentation of the defence case. In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, is not satisfied that Karadžić has demonstrated any error on the part of the Trial Chamber. 

22. The Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s analysis of the parties’ direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses. Karadžić contends that the Prosecution’s use of written testimony meant that the comparatively short duration of direct examination “bore absolutely no relation” to the breadth of testimony, or, accordingly, to the time he needed to cross‑examine Prosecution witnesses. He also submits that the limitations imposed by the Trial Chamber on the length of his cross-examinations further undermine the relevance of this consideration. However, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber did not merely compare the duration of direct and cross-examination during the Prosecution case, but also considered the nature and substance of Karadžić’s cross-examination, specifically observing that Karadžić elicited evidence relevant to his defence pursuant to Rule 90(H) of the Rules. The Appeals Chamber considers, Judge Robinson dissenting, that it is within a trial chamber’s discretion to determine that, in certain circumstances, the elicitation of such evidence is relevant to the time allocated to the defence for the presentation of its case. Recalling that a trial chamber’s decision on the allocation of time for the defence case is “the result of a highly contextual analysis”, the deference accorded to such decisions, and the trial chamber’s obligation to ensure that trials do not suffer undue delays, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, finds that the Trial Chamber did not err, in the circumstances of this case, by considering the duration and content of Karadžić’s cross-examination in allocating 300 hours for his defence.

18. The Appeals Chamber first turns to Karadžić’s contentions regarding the Adjudicated Facts. Contrary to Karadžić’s suggestion, the Judicial Notice Decisions did not suggest that he would be allocated additional time to rebut the Adjudicated Facts.[1] In addition, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, considers Karadžić is unconvincing in asserting that the Impugned Decision did not sufficiently assess the time he would need to rebut the Adjudicated Facts.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber explicitly considered the “high number of adjudicated facts”[3] as one element underlying its decision granting Karadžić the same courtroom time as the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber also explicitly assessed the potential impact of the Adjudicated Facts on Karadžić’s case, concluding that not every Adjudicated Fact would need to be rebutted during Karadžić’s defence, as Karadžić had an opportunity to cross‑examine and elicit relevant evidence from Prosecution witnesses during the presentation of the Prosecution case.[4] While this analysis did not specify the amount of time being granted to rebut the Adjudicated Facts, the Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber is “not obligated to justify its decision [on the allocation of time] with reference to each piece of evidence proposed”.[5] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, is not satisfied that Karadžić has demonstrated that the Impugned Decision’s analysis of the Adjudicated Facts was deficient.

19. The Appeals Chamber notes that Karadžić challenges the Impugned Decision by discussing the Trial Chamber’s analyses of certain Adjudicated Facts which he contends are demonstrative of the Trial Chamber’s general failure to consider the full import of the Adjudicated Facts.[6] However, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber was intimately aware of the scope of the Adjudicated Facts, as demonstrated by its multiple detailed decisions considering adjudicated facts proposed by the Prosecution.[7] In addition, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Impugned Decision explicitly considered that Karadžić had the opportunity to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses on many of the topics covered by the Adjudicated Facts, further demonstrating the Trial Chamber’s familiarity with this evidence.[8] In these circumstances, recalling that trial chambers enjoy broad discretion in evaluating evidence,[9] the Appeals Chamber, Judge Robinson dissenting, finds that Karadžić has not demonstrated that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the import or scope of the Adjudicated Facts in its consideration of the time allocated for the defence case.

7.         The question of time limits and witness allocation is somewhat less straightforward.  The Appeals Chamber has long recognized that “the principle of equality of arms between the prosecutor and accused in a criminal trial goes to the heart of the fair trial guarantee.”[1]  At a minimum, “equality of arms obligates a judicial body to ensure that neither party is put at a disadvantage when presenting its case,” certainly in terms of procedural equity.[2]  This is not to say, however, that an Accused is necessarily entitled to precisely the same amount of time or the same number of witnesses as the Prosecution.  The Prosecution has the burden of telling an entire story, of putting together a coherent narrative and proving every necessary element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.  Defense strategy, by contrast, often focuses on poking specifically targeted holes in the Prosecution’s case, an endeavor which may require less time and fewer witnesses.  This is sufficient reason to explain why a principle of basic proportionality, rather than a strict principle of mathematical equality, generally governs the relationship between the time and witnesses allocated to the two sides.

8.       In addition, it should be noted that although Rule 73 ter gives the Trial Chamber the authority to limit the length of time and number of witnesses allocated to the defense case, such restrictions are always subject to the general requirement that the rights of the accused pursuant to Article 21 of the Statute of the International Tribunal be respected.  Thus, in addition to the question whether, relative to the time allocated to the Prosecution, the time given to the Accused is reasonably proportional, a Trial Chamber must also consider whether the amount of time is objectively adequate to permit the Accused to set forth his case in a manner consistent with his rights.[3]

9.       The question, then, is whether, taking into account the complexity of the remaining issues, the amount of time and the number of witnesses allocated to Orić’s defense are reasonably proportional to the Prosecution’s allocation and sufficient to permit Orić a fair opportunity to present his case.  The Trial Chamber’s order leaves Orić nine weeks to present 30 witnesses.[4] [….]