Krajisnik continued to play a limited role in cross-examining prosecution witnesses as he awaited the trial chamber’s final decision on his request to ditch his legal team and take over his case, which includes charges of genocide.
But as he stumbled along, regularly interrupted by judges correcting his numerous mistakes, the former speaker of the Bosnian Serb parliament gradually appeared to realise that being one’s own lawyer is not all it was cracked up to be.
“I must say,” he admitted after yet another such disruption, “the task that [defence] counsel has to perform is very difficult.”
At various times during his questioning, presiding Judge Alphons Orie felt it necessary to remind the accused to stop making impromptu speeches, to limit his extravagant pleasantries, to refrain from asking leading questions and to speak slow enough for court interpreters to keep up.
Earlier in the week, at a May 31 status conference convened to discuss the issue, prosecutors insisted that one fundamental question must be answered before judges can decide whether Krajisnik should be allowed to dismiss his lawyers: Does the accused – who has no legal training – fully appreciate what he is seeking to take on, and the potentially dire consequences that his decision could have for his case?
To date only one Hague accused – former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic – is running his own defence, to mixed reviews. The prosecution regularly accuses him of turning the courtroom into a political tribune, and deliberately prolonging his time in court. Another indictee, ultra-nationalist Serbian politician Vojislav Seselj, has asked to be allowed to represent himself, but the court insists he should use the assigned standby counsel. So far Seselj has spent much of his pre-trial detention compiling epic abusive letters to senior court staff.
Prompted by this experience, The Hague prosecutors suggested this week that thought should be given to the various ways in which lawyers might be assigned to Krajisnik's case in an advisory role.
Krajisnik, on trial for his alleged role in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing during the early stages of the Bosnian war, first announced his wish to lead his own defence in a letter to the tribunal’s registry on May 25.
On the same day, he told judges that while he respected the professional abilities of his defence lawyers, he was not happy with the way they were conducting his case.
Prosecutors laid out their position in a written submission filed immediately before the May 31 status conference.
While they were convinced that “it is not a prudent course of action for an accused to represent himself or herself in a criminal case”, they said, they recognised Krajisnik’s prima facie right - enshrined in the tribunal’s statute - to do so.
They went on to acknowledge that certain factors which might otherwise put limits on this right - such as obstructive behaviour on the part of the accused, or ill health which might prevent him from conducting his defence properly – do not apply in this case.
But they also emphasised that Krajisnik has no legal training, and that his first attempt at questioning a witness late last week “did not disclose an obvious mastery of cross-examination”.
On that occasion, too, Krajisnik was admonished by Judge Orie for asking the witness - Bilal Hasanovic, former president of the Vogosce municipal assembly - to speculate about facts that were beyond the scope of his experience.
Under these circumstances, prosecutors argued, it would be “good practice” for judges to make absolutely sure that Krajisnik’s decision to defend himself in court was an informed and considered choice.
Prosecutors also suggested that judges should consider assigning standby counsel to assist Krajisnik, taking care not to “disproportionately restrict the accused’s right to conduct his own defence”. They nominated Krajisnik’s current defence team, Nicholas Stewart and co-counsel Chrissa Loukas, as the lawyers who would be best placed to take on this role.
Krajisnik has already said that while he wants to take the lead in presenting his case, he would appreciate the assistance of an “advisor” who could help him “not to offend the trial chamber”.
Speaking at this week’s status conference, Stewart agreed that judges ought to explore the question of assigning standby counsel to the accused. But he added that the situation is currently too unclear for him to be able to say whether he would be in a position to take on such a role.
Stewart also said he had no objection to the suggestion that judges should carry out further enquiries to make sure Krajisnik is fully aware of what his decision entails.
At the same time, he emphasised that judges should bear in mind that the accused’s right to defend himself ought not to be prejudiced by the fact that others might consider it a “foolish” thing to do.
Krajisnik, given a chance to address the court in person, then embarked on a passionate and rather confused speech, a significant portion of which was devoted to extolling the virtues of Judge Orie.
He also praised his defence counsel, but reiterated his desire to “participate actively” in his case. And he insisted that his wish to take over his defence was a “fully pondered and considered decision”.
On June 1, prosecutors called Dr Berko Zecevic, a munitions expert who worked at the major Pretis ammunition factory in Sarajevo until the start of the war in Bosnia, as a witness.
Zecevic had already provided the bulk of his testimony in a written statement submitted to the court before his arrival. In this deposition, the witness spoke of roadblocks set up around the Pretis factory by the Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA, in March 1992 shortly before war broke out in Bosnia.
He also described how Serbs were manoeuvred into senior positions in the factory, and said he heard about a list of non-Serb ex-staff members who were to be killed.
Prosecutors have argued that Krajisnik’s Serb Democratic Party, SDS, conspired with the JNA to distribute weapons amongst the Serb population in Bosnia.
During cross-examination, Stewart attempted to show that much of the witness’ testimony was outside his own area of expertise as a researcher and designer in the Pretis factory.
He also suggested that to the extent that a person’s ethnicity was taken into account when they were being considered for a senior role there, this was part of an effort to ensure equal opportunities for members of Bosnia’s different ethnic groups.
Krajisnik then seized the opportunity to follow up on his counsel’s questioning. “I won’t put any difficult questions to you, because I'm not a lawyer,” he began.
He then explained that he had asked around among Zecevic’s former colleagues to get an idea of his character. “They spoke about you favourably,” Krajisnik reassured the witness, who had been called to give evidence against him, “I believe that everything you will say will be the truth.”
His subsequent brief cross-examination included a number of questions about the production and use of arms by Bosnian Muslims during the war.
The whole issue of Krajisnik’s defence came into focus one last time as the hearing came to an end, when discussion turned to scheduling issues.
Krajisnik’s remark that he would defer to his “former defence team” on the matter drew a reminder from Judge Orie that, as things stand, Stewart and Loukas are not yet his “former” lawyers.
“I was just trying to make a joke,” the defendant said. “I hope I haven’t been misunderstood.”
Prosecutors, defence lawyers and Krajisnik himself will all now have a chance to submit another round of written arguments before the trial chamber makes its decision.
Michael Farquhar is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
