Court Undertakes Radical Review to Continue Milosevic Trial

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic has reached a critical juncture. With the Accused protesting he was not well enough to be in court and demanding he be given at least another month to prepare his case, the Presiding Judge declared, 'The Chamber clearly is of the view that the time has come for a radical review of the trial process and continuation of the trial in light of the health problems of the Accused.'

The Court was moved to act by a July 2 medical report by Milosevic's treating cardiologist which indicated not only that his blood pressure was unacceptably high this past week, but that it was likely to spike again after a rest and a return to trial. The Accused, the Amici Curiae and the Prosecutor all spoke to the deterioration of Milosevic's health over the past 18 months. Indeed, despite his not having been in the courtroom since February, Milosevic has been unable to work on his defence for significant periods.

For the first time, the Court seemed seriously to consider appointing counsel to represent Milosevic despite his objection. It may be the only way for the Court to carry out its responsibility under Article 20 of the ICTY Statute to assure a fair and expeditious trial conducted with 'full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.'

Amicus Steven Kay advised the Court that it should address both the Accused's ability to return to trial in the immediate future and his long term fitness to stand trial at all. Lead Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice returned to a recommendation he has made many times in the past, 'It is now essential if the case is to be properly concluded in a reasonable time that counsel be imposed. . . .' Mr. Nice suggested that the first option for the Court to consider is asking Milosevic to nominate someone to represent him, most likely one of his legal associates. If he declines to do so, the Court could proceed to appoint someone, probably one of the Amici because of their familiarity with the case. He also suggested that Milosevic could watch the examination of witnesses via videolink from his cell in the Detention Center on days he is not up to coming to court. 'Circumstances have changed,' he concluded, 'This is a case that must be tried. The Accused wishes it to be tried. The way it can satisfactorily and reasonably be tried is with imposition of counsel for at least part of the defence case.'

The Accused vehemently objected to be represented by counsel. 'It is out of the question, as you know. Nor will I ever agree to it.' 'I am going to examine my witnesses and will be present here in this room.' Not content with this declaration, however, he added that the doctor recommended he work no more than three days per week, which included days working out of court as well as those in court. This probably didn't help his argument for continued self-representation, since it would reduce weekly trial days even more, possibly doubling the length of the trial from here on out.

The Court thanked the parties and the Amicus for their arguments and adjourned, promising to make a decision by the end of the day or tomorrow. In reaching that decision, the Court will be mindful of the fact that nearly 2 1/2 years have elapsed since the beginning of the trial, the Judge who presided over the trial since its inception has died and the Accused's health continues to deteriorate, further delaying the proceedings to some unpredictable and far in the future end date. It serves no one's interest for the trial to drag on endlessly, not the public's, the victims', the Tribunal's nor the Accused's. If the Accused is not capable of mounting a defence, the Court is obligated to provide him with the means of doing so. The Court is not obligated to provide him the kind of forum he desires, a political pulpit from which he can address the world.

He has been brought before a criminal tribunal to answer for the most serious crimes known to humanity. He deserves and is entitled to a good professional defence, one he is both unwilling and incapable of providing. At this point, the Court must act to uphold the integrity of the process, which includes the interests of the public and the victims in reaching a conclusion in a reasonable time.