‘Where and accused lacks the requisite knowledge of the law or legal procedure to the extent that it will substantially and persistently obstruct the proper and expeditious conduct of the trial’, the Appeals Chamber ruled in its decision, ‘the solution is not the funding of highly experienced legal associates, but rather the curtailment of his right to self-representation’


The Appeals Chamber denied in its entirety the motion Radovan Karadzic filed against the decision of the Trial Chamber denying his demand to the Chamber to order the Registry to give his legal advisors, Peter Robinson and Goran Petronijevic, the same amount of money they would get as his defense counsel. The challenged decision, passed on 28 January 2009, notes that the accused, who has chosen to defend himself, ‘has no right to a financial assistance of the Tribunal’ but the ICTY Registry may allocate a certain amount for legal advisors of the accused and pay them as the assistant staff of the defense team.

In his appeal Karadzic contended that the Trial Chamber erred when it concluded – in a reference to the practice in the Momcilo Krajisnik case – that the Registry was not obliged to pay the highly qualified legal advisors of an accused. The Trial Chamber also played down the role and the task of legal advisors, the accused went on to say, when it ruled that the fee paid to the assistant staff was adequate for the assistance the legal advisors provided to Karadzic. Finally, the accused argued that the Trial Chamber’s decision prevented him from obtaining legal assistance at a level higher than that of assistant staff. This, Karadzic concluded, strips him of his right to a fair trial and is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

In its reply to the motion of the accused, the Registry stated that when an accused decided to defend himself he agreed to not getting additional assistance to ensure a fair trial. If an accused cannot defend himself with the allocated resources, the Registry noted, the question is whether he can indeed defend himself.

The decision published today states that the Trial Chamber with Judge Bonomy presiding correctly interpreted the previous decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Krajisnik case concluding that ‘where and accused lacks the requisite knowledge of the law or legal procedure to the extent that it will substantially and persistently obstruct the proper and expeditious conduct of the trial, the solution is not the funding of highly experienced legal associates, but rather the curtailment of his right to self-representation”.

The Appeals Chamber states in its decision that the established remuneration system did not diminish the significance and role of Karadzic’s legal advisors, adding that the Registry was not obliged to pay the same amount to legal advisors as to defense counsel. The accused choosing to defend himself is expected to do all the work a defense counsel does except for the things he cannot deal with because of his detention, the Appeals Chamber noted.

The judges once again reminded Karadzic of their decision in the Slobodan Milosevic case that ‘by choosing to conduct his own defence, the accused deprives himself of resources a well equipped legal defence team could have provided. A defendant who decides to represent himself relinquishes many of the benefits associated with representation by counsel. The legal system’s respect for a defendant’s decision to forgo assistance of counsel must be reciprocated by the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring”, the Appeals Chamber concluded in its decision.

Sharing