The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on assigned counsel's motion for withdrawal, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, December 7, 2004 [ruling that although Milosevic has been allowed to resume the conduct of his own defense, counsel were still needed to ensure the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings]. Excerpt:

The Trial Chamber observes that assignment of counsel against the wishes of the accused is a developing area of the law both in national and international jurisdictions. In such a situation it is plain that any code regulating the conduct of counsel, drafted at a time when such appointments were not specifically considered, must be construed in light of developments in the law. Thus, where the highest judicial authority in the Tribunal has determined that counsel may be assigned to an accused against his will and in anticipation of his non-cooperation, the ICTY Code and any other applicable Code under Rule 44 must be construed in a manner that takes account of that development. This is so because, as set out earlier in this Decision, the Code, as a subsidiary instrument, must be construed consistently with the Statute. Counsel discharge their duty to represent the interests of the accused to whom they are assigned by acting in what they, in the exercise of their professional judgement, perceive them to be. The refusal of the Accused to instruct or cooperate, let alone his criticism of counsel in the conduct of his defence, all of which was foreseeable by counsel prior to their assignment, cannot be the basis for determining whether counsel are acting in the best interests of the Accused.

It follows from the previous analysis that assigning counsel to an unwilling and uncooperative accused — including an accused who attacks the professional conduct of counsel — cannot be said to impose pressure on counsel such that their integrity is compromised within the meaning of Article 10 of the ICTY Code, which deals with professional integrity.

Read the full test of the decision here. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.