Self-Representation Versus Assignment of Defence Counsel Before International Criminal Tribunals
Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2006
21 Pages Posted: 26 Oct 2005
There are 2 versions of this paper
Self-Representation Versus Assignment of Defence Counsel Before International Criminal Tribunals
Self-Representation Versus Assignment of Defence Counsel Before International Criminal Tribunals
Abstract
After examining the drafting history of Article 14 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which lays down a defendant's right "to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing," the relevant national and international case law and scholarly commentary, the author argues that the underlying purpose of the right at issue is to ensure a fair trial. This objective can best be met in cases of former leaders accused of international crimes by assigning the defendant a highly qualified attorney who is vigilantly committed to representing his client's interests. In his view there are two main reasons why a court in international crimes trial should be able to require the defendant to work through counsel: (1) the likelihood that a defendant will act in a disruptive manner; and (2) the unique need in a complex international crimes case for an orderly trial.
Keywords: Self-representation, International trials, Due process, Rights of the defense, Saddam Hussein Trial, Slobodan Millosevic Trial, Iraqi Special Tribunal, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Special Court for Sierra Leone, International Criminal Trib
JEL Classification: K14, K33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation