The Right to Self-Representation before the International Criminal Tribunals

Although the right to self-representationis recognised by many international humanrights documents and the statutes ofthe international criminal tribunals (theICTs), there have been difficulties in casemanagement while enforcing the right fordefendants before ICTs. It has been wellargued that those accused of internationalcrimes should be fully afforded the rightto defend themselves if they choose so,despite associated difficulties. This paperexamines the difficulties caused by the (ab)use of self-representation before the ICTsand discusses whether defendants at theICTs should be fully accorded the right todefend themselves, scrutinising key casesfrom different ICTs.

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemeleri Önünde Sanıkların Kendini Savunma Hakkı

Uluslararası insan hakları sözleşmeleri ve uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinin kuruluş statüleri sanıklara kendilerini savunma hakkı tanımaktadır. Fakat, pratikte bu hakkın (kötüye) kullanılması davanın yürütülmesi açısından birçok zorluğa neden olmuştur. Uygulamada meydana gelen bütün zorluklara rağmen, uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinde yargılanan sanıkların kendilerini savunma hakkından yararlanmaları gerekliliği doktrinde sıkça ifade edilmiştir. Bu makalede, sanıkların uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinde kendilerini savunma hakkını kullanmalarının pratikte ne gibi zorluklara yol açtığı ve hakkın kullanılmasının hangi durumlarda kısıtlanması gerektiği tartışılacaktır.

PDF

___

Anoya E, ‘In the Shadow of Nonrecognition: Milošević and the SelfRepresented Accused’s Right to Justice’ in Timothy William Waters (ed.), The Milošević Trial: An Autopsy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013)

Assy R, Injustice in Person: The Right to Self-Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015)

Bassiouni CM, ‘Human Rights in The Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions’ (1993) 3 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 235

Bertodano S, ‘Defence Counsel’, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009)

Boas G, Milosevic Trial: Lessons for the Conduct of Complex International Trial (Cambridge University Press 2007)

Boas G, ‘Self-Representation before the ICTY: A Case for Reform’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 53

Eugene Cerruti, ‘Self-Representation in the International Arena: Removing a False Right of Spectacle’ (2009) 40 Georgetown Journal of International Law 919

Combs NA, ‘Regulation of Defence Counsel: An Evolution Towards Restriction and Legitimacy’ in Bert Swart, Alexander Zahar, and Göran Sluiter (eds.), The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011)

Damaška M, ‘Assignment of Counsel and Perceptions of Fairness’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 3

Higgins G, ‘The Development of the Right to Self-Representation before the International Criminal Tribunals’ in Shane Darcy and Joseph Powderly (eds.), Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010)

Hotis C, ‘A “ Fair and Expeditious ” Trial : A Reappraisal of Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation before the International Criminal Tribunal Fo the Former Yugoslavia’ (2006) 6 Chicago Journal of International Law 775

Jackson J, ‘Autonomy and Accuracy in the Development of Fair Trial Rights’ [2009] University College Dublin Law Research Paper No. 09/2009 1

Jørgensen NHB, ‘The Right of the Accused to Self-Representation before International Criminal Tribunals: Further Developments’ (2005) 99 The American Journal of International Law 663

Kay SW, ‘Fair Trials and the International Criminal Tribunals - Whose Case Is It Anyway? The Right of an Accused to Defend Himself in Person before International Criminal Courts’ (2007) 4 International Commentary on Evidence 2

Kay SW and Higgins G, ‘The Right of Self-Representation – The Lawyers in the Eye of the Storm’ [2010] International Criminal Law Bureau 1

Ridley MD, ‘The Right to Defend Pro Se: Faretta v. California and Beyond Note’ (1976) 40 Albany Law Review 423

Schabas W, An Introduction to The International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 5th ed. 2017)

Scharf MP, ‘Self-Representation versus Assignment of Defence Counsel before International Criminal Tribunals’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 31

Scharf MP, ‘Chaos in the Courtroom, Controlling Disruptive Defendants and Contumacious Counsel in War Crimes Trials’ (2007) Paper 114 Faculty Publications 155

Scharf MP and Rassi CM, ‘Do Former Leaders Have an International Right to Self Representation in War Crimes Trials?’ (2005) 20 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 3

Schomburg W, ‘Some Reflections on the Right to Self-Representation Before International Tribunals’ (2011) 12 ERA Forum 189

Shany Y, ‘The Legitimacy Paradox of Self-Representation’ in in Timothy William Waters (ed.), The Milošević Trial: An Autopsy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013)

Sloane R, ‘Self-Representation’, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009)

Sluiter G, ‘Compromising the Authority of International Criminal Justice: How Vojislav Seselj Runs His Trial’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 529

Sluiter G, ‘Karadžić on Trial: Two Procedural Problems’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 617

Trechsel S, ‘Rights in Criminal Proceedings under the ECHR and the ICTY Statute—A Precarious Comparison’ in Bert Swart, Alexander Zahar, and Göran Sluiter (eds.), The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011)

Tuinstra JT, Defence Counsel in International Criminal Law (TMC Asser Press 2009)

Tuinstra JT, ‘The ICTY’s Continuing Struggle with the Right to Selfrepresentation’ in Bert Swart, Alexander Zahar, and Göran Sluiter (eds.),

The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011)

White MS and Gutheil TG, ‘Proposed Model for Assessing Defendant Competence to Self Represent’, 2016 (44)4 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 425

Zahar A, ‘Legal Aid, Self-Representation, and the Crisis at the Hague Tribunal’ (2008) 19 CrimLaw Forum 241

Cases US Supreme Court: Faretta v. California 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

ECtHR: Croissant v. Germany [1992] ECHR 60 Lagerblom v. Sweden [2003] ECHR 28

HRC: Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 526/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/526/1993, 2 April 1997

ICTY: Prosecutor v. Milosevic, ‘Reasons for Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel’, Case No: IT-02-54-T, Trial Chamber, 22 September 2004.

Prosecutor v. Milosevic, ‘Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel’, Case No: IT-02- 54-AR73.7, Appeals Chamber, 1 November 2004.

Prosecutor v. Milošević, ‘Reasons for Decision on the Prosecution Motion Concerning Assignment of Counsel’, Case No: IT-02-54, Trial Chamber, 4 April 2003.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, ‘Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for Order Appointing Counsel to Assist Vojislav Šešelj with his Defence’, Case No: IT-03- 67-PT, Trial Chamber II, 09 May 2003.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, ‘Decision on Assignment of Counsel’, Case No: IT-03- 67-PT, Trial Chamber I, 21 August 2006.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, ‘Decision on Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Assignment of Counsel’, Case No: IT-03-67-AR73.3, Appeals Chamber, 20 October 2006.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, ‘Order Concerning Appointment of Standby Counsel and Delayed Commencement of Trial’, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, Trial Chamber I, 25 October 2006.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Decision on Assignment of Counsel, Case No. IT-03- 67-T, Trial Chamber, 27 November 2006.

Prosecutor v. Šešelj, ‘Decision on Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision (No. 2) on Assignment of Counsel’, Case No: IT-03-67-AR73.4, Appeals Chamber, 8 December 2006.

Prosecutor v.Šešelj, ‘Public Version of the ‘‘Consolidated Decision on Assignment of Counsel, Adjournment and Prosecution Motion for Additional Time with Separate Opinion of Presiding Judge Antonetti in Annex’ Case No: IT-03-67-T, Trial Chamber, 11 December 2009.

ICTR: Prosecutor v. Barayagwiza, ‘Decision on Defence Counsel Motion to Withdraw, Case No: ICTR-97-19-T, Trial Chamber, 2 November 2000. Prosecutor v. Barayagwiza, ‘Judgment and Sentence’, Case No: ICTR-99- 52-T, Trial Chamber, 3 December 2003.

SCSL: Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana, and Kondewa, ‘Decision on the Application of Samuel Hinga Norman for Self-Representation Under Art. 17(4)(d) of the Statute of the Special Court’, Case No. SCSL 04-14-T, Trial Chamber, 8 June 2004.

Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana, and Kondewa, ‘Ruling on Non-Appearance of First Accused, Second Accused and Third Accused at Trial Proceedings, Case No: SCSL-04-14-PT, Trial Chamber, 1 October 2004.

Statutes & Covenants & Conventions Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5

Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969

UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171

UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), 17 July 1998

UN Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (as amended on 17 May 2002), 25 May 1993

UN Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (as last amended on 13 October 2006), 8 November 1994 UN Security Council, Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002