Court Moves Closer to Appointment of Counsel
Court Moves Closer to Appointment of Counsel
Moving closer to the appointment of counsel, the Trial Chamber ordered that Slobodan Milosevic be examined by an independent cardiologist to determine his fitness to continue to represent himself and 'the likely impact on the trial schedule should he continue to do so.' The Court rejected Amicus Steven Kay's suggestion that the Accused might not be fit to stand trial at all, stating there was no evidence to support it.
Referring to the latest medical report which advised that Milosevic's health problem can be expected to recur and considering the time lost to date due to his illness, the court noted that 'there is evidence that the health of the Accused is such that he may not be fit to continue to represent himself, and that his continuing to represent himself could adversely affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial.'
The Chamber ordered that the trial be resumed for one week in July (from July 14 - 21), followed by an adjournment until the end of August, approximately 6 weeks. This will compensate Milosevic for preparation time he lost due to illness over the past four months. It will also allow time for potential defence counsel to be identified by the Registrar, as further directed by the Court.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Trial Chamber's decision in the Seselj case appointing standby counsel. The Court pointed out, however, that the ways set out for standby counsel to operate in that case 'are not exhaustive.' In other words, the Milosevic Court is giving notice that it may require a greater or different role for counsel, if it concludes counsel should be appointed to assure the trial continues in a fair and expeditious manner. The Court also noted that civil law countries like Serbia and Montenegro do not allow an accused to represent himself in serious cases, providing further justification for imposing counsel over the Accused's objections..
The Court's action can be seen as laying the ground work to appoint counsel -- whether as standby, co-counsel or one who assumes primary responsibility for representing the Accused. While there is legal support for imposing counsel against the wishes of an accused, the Court seeks to assure itself (and the public) that it is medically necessary. While this may not be the definitive decision some observers want, it is clear that the Court is taking seriously its responsibility to assure a fair trial. Contrary to speculation in some quarters, the Court's focus is not on ending the trial before its conclusion. Rather, it is on reaching a conclusion in the most expeditious and fairest way possible.
See also, CIJ Reports 'Court Appoints Standby Counsel in Seselj Case,' May 12, 2003; 'Fair Trial May Require Appointment of Counsel: The Court must consider Milosevic's health and poor defense,' July 25, 2002, among others.
Referring to the latest medical report which advised that Milosevic's health problem can be expected to recur and considering the time lost to date due to his illness, the court noted that 'there is evidence that the health of the Accused is such that he may not be fit to continue to represent himself, and that his continuing to represent himself could adversely affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial.'
The Chamber ordered that the trial be resumed for one week in July (from July 14 - 21), followed by an adjournment until the end of August, approximately 6 weeks. This will compensate Milosevic for preparation time he lost due to illness over the past four months. It will also allow time for potential defence counsel to be identified by the Registrar, as further directed by the Court.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Trial Chamber's decision in the Seselj case appointing standby counsel. The Court pointed out, however, that the ways set out for standby counsel to operate in that case 'are not exhaustive.' In other words, the Milosevic Court is giving notice that it may require a greater or different role for counsel, if it concludes counsel should be appointed to assure the trial continues in a fair and expeditious manner. The Court also noted that civil law countries like Serbia and Montenegro do not allow an accused to represent himself in serious cases, providing further justification for imposing counsel over the Accused's objections..
The Court's action can be seen as laying the ground work to appoint counsel -- whether as standby, co-counsel or one who assumes primary responsibility for representing the Accused. While there is legal support for imposing counsel against the wishes of an accused, the Court seeks to assure itself (and the public) that it is medically necessary. While this may not be the definitive decision some observers want, it is clear that the Court is taking seriously its responsibility to assure a fair trial. Contrary to speculation in some quarters, the Court's focus is not on ending the trial before its conclusion. Rather, it is on reaching a conclusion in the most expeditious and fairest way possible.
See also, CIJ Reports 'Court Appoints Standby Counsel in Seselj Case,' May 12, 2003; 'Fair Trial May Require Appointment of Counsel: The Court must consider Milosevic's health and poor defense,' July 25, 2002, among others.
