Krajišnik insisted to represent himself in the appellate proceedings. The Appeals Chamber accepted this choice but assigned an amicus curiae (see Krajišnik Decision on Self-Representation). On 21 February 2008, Krajišnik filed a Motion in which he sought to have the upcoming status conference postponed from 1 March 2008 to 31 March 2008 and “engage the services of attorney Alan Dershowitz to assist him in the remaining phases of the appellate process, specifically limited to a brief on the subject of Joint Criminal Enterprise”.[1]

6. In the Appeals Chamber’s opinion, the situation presents something of a conundrum. On the one hand, Mr. Krajišnik has already elected to represent himself pursuant to the Appeals Chamber Decision permitting him to do so,[2] and as noted by the Appeals Chamber at the time, he “must accept responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring.”[3] On the other hand, the Appeals Chamber has recognized the existence of heightened concerns regarding the basic fairness of proceedings when a defendant has chosen to self-represent.[4] For this reason, amicus curiae was appointed “to assist the Appeals Chamber by arguing in favour of Mr. Krajišnik’s interests.”[5]

7. In the past the Tribunal has wrestled with the appropriateness of certain restrictions on the right to self-representation.[6] Here, the converse question arises: are there legitimate restrictions on the right of a self-represented defendant to hire a lawyer? The Appeals Chamber has held that the right of self-representation “may be curtailed on the grounds that a defendant’s self-representation is substantially and persistently obstructing the proper and expeditious conduct of his trial.”[7] Such a standard is also apt in resolving the present issue. In this case, the Appeals Chamber notes that Mr. Krajišnik has long sought to engage the services of Mr. Dershowitz, and there is no reason to believe that Mr. Krajišnik has deliberately manipulated the situation in order to create unnecessary delays. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber has discretion to call for an expedited briefing schedule and thereby avoid protracted proceedings.

8. There is also no incongruity in allowing partial self-representation, even though the Appeals Chamber has referred to self-representation and legal assistance as standing in “binary opposition”.[8] What the Appeals Chamber has prohibited is a situation whereby defendants can mix-and-match various elements of self-representation and legal assistance – e.g., when a self-represented accused has attempted to partake of legal aid funding.[9] A defendant must take the bitter with the sweet when making this choice, but only with respect to each issue. There is no fundamental reason why a defendant may not make different choices – self-representing or engaging legal counsel – with regard to different issues.

9. Although the Appeals Chamber has already benefited from the legal arguments advanced by Mr. Colin Nicholls as amicus curiae, Mr. Nicholls is not a party to the current proceedings and does not represent Mr. Krajišnik.[10] By contrast, Mr. Dershowtiz can present Mr. Krajišnik’s own arguments regarding a complex issue, Joint Criminal Enterprise (“JCE”), which the Appeals Chamber acknowledges might be too complex for a non-lawyer to master. Consequently, there is a strong presumption that, despite the late date, Mr. Krajišnik should be afforded the opportunity to present the most compelling case that he can. As long as Mr. Dershowitz’s involvement at this stage will not cause substantial or persistent obstruction or delays of the appeal proceedings, and provided he meets the requirements set out in Rule 44 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber recognizes that Mr. Krajišnik may engage Mr. Dershowitz’s legal assistance regarding a discrete issue.

10. The Appeals Chamber appreciates that there might be a risk of redundancy and complication since amicus curiae has already advanced arguments regarding JCE, the issue that Mr. Dershowitz also intends to brief. Furthermore, there is a legitimate concern about not delaying proceedings that have already proved extremely time-consuming. The Appeals Chamber considers that these concerns can be allayed.

11. As to the risk that Mr. Dershowitz’s brief might add unnecessary confusion, it should go without saying that in the event of a contradiction between the submissions of amicus curiae and Mr. Dershowitz, the Appeals Chamber will treat only Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments as representing his client’s views. To avoid unhelpful complication, the Appeals Chamber directs Mr. Dershowitz to state with precision which arguments of amicus curiae he embraces and which arguments he rejects. Although Mr. Krajišnik has addressed the JCE issue in his Appeal Brief,[11] the Appeals Chamber will regard Mr. Dershowitz’s submission as a supplementary brief on behalf of Mr. Krajišnik.

12. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber imposes a strict briefing schedule in order to prevent unnecessarily long or time-consuming submissions and thereby foster expeditious appeal proceedings. […] Given these parameters, the Appeals Chamber is convinced that Mr. Dershowitz can advance fully any additional arguments that Mr. Krajišnik wishes to make without causing undue delay in the appeal proceedings. The Appeals Chamber must emphasize that the current scheduling for the filing of briefs shall remain unaffected.

On 29 February 2008, the Prosecution filed a motion seeking clarification on the content of Mr. Dershowitz’s supplementary brief and the extent of Mr. Krajišnik’s continued self-representation and reconsideration of the applicable word limits.[12] In its Decision of 11 March 2008 (“Krajišnik Decision on Clarification of Alan Dershowitz Participation”), the Appeals Chamber granted the Motion in part and directed Mr. Dershowitz to as follows:

9. The Appeals Chamber has already described the purview of Mr. Dershowitz’s representation, which is limited to the question of JCE.[13] Additionally, in the Decision of 28 February 2008, the Appeals Chamber directed Mr. Dershowitz “to state with precision which arguments of amicus curiae he embraces and which arguments he rejects.”[14] The Appeals Chamber orders Mr. Dershowitz to do the same with respect to the arguments that Mr. Krajišnik has already made in his appeal brief. Mr. Dershowitz must be clear as to which of the arguments are new and the extent to which they complement or supersede those arguments made by Mr. Krajišnik. In short, because Mr. Dershowitz will be acting as counsel for Mr. Krajišnik, at least in a limited capacity, the two must speak with a single voice. The arguments that Mr. Dershowitz advances will thus make clear the issues on which Mr. Krajišnik is represented by counsel..[15]

The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Prosecution’s argument in relation to the applicable word limits on the basis that the principle of “equality of arms” had not been breached and that no actual prejudice had been demonstrated at that stage.[16]