The prosecution wants the judges to reject the recent motion filed by Ratko Mladic’s defense which focuses on the ‘alarming news’ that some of the legal advisers appointed to assist the trial chamber in Mladic’s case had previously worked with the judges who convicted Radovan Karadzic. According to the defense, this will ‘compromise’ the outcome of the judges’ work. The defense wants to be given guarantees that Mladic’s right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence will be safeguarded. If that is not possible, the defense wants the judges to call a mistrial.

In its response, the prosecution states that the defense’s claims are unfounded and contrary to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. It is highly unlikely, in the prosecution’s view, that the judges would appoint inept advisers to assist them in their job, which is to consider the evidence and reach the verdict. The prosecution also notes that the jurisprudence has shown the authority of the judges in reaching the verdict has not been reduced or weakened by the assistance rendered by the advisers. In its motion, the prosecution brings up the previous decisions of other appellate chambers which had ruled that even if a judge has deliberated on the same or similar factual allegations (but on the basis of the evidence called at that particular trial), this will not meet the high threshold of proof needed to bring into question the presumption of the judge’s impartiality in another case.