ADC Archives - michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

The Common Code of Professional Conduct: flawed and hubristic – Part I

On Friday 10 November 2017, The Fifth International Meetings of the Defence adopted the so-called Common Code of Professional Conduct for all Counsel appearing before the International Criminal Tribunals (Common Code). Aside from being a non-binding document (I hesitate to call it a code since it is nothing of the kind), it is flawed and hubristic. Indeed, it may be that everything you need to know about the arrogance of the document and its creators can be divined from the declaration that it is to be “referred to as the 2017 Nuremberg Code.”

By happenstance, I heard that the Association of Defence Counsel practising before the International Courts and Tribunals (ADC) was consulted on this initiative. Having a particular interest in professional responsibility and ethics, I reached out to get a copy of the Common Code.

The ADC – the first and without a doubt the most accomplished association of its kind – was not involved in the drafting of the Common Code. The ADC sent its members a copy of the “Proposed Code,” informing them that it received the draft relatively late in the process. After the ADC Executive Committee and Disciplinary Council made an initial assessment of the Proposed Code, and without circulating it to the ADC membership (for reasons that become obvious from the available correspondence and discussed below), it decided that the ADC could not sign the Proposed Code as presented. Continue reading “The Common Code of Professional Conduct: flawed and hubristic – Part I”

ADC and ICCBA: not a zero-sum game

Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Ayn Rand

We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin

Commenting on my most recent post “The ADC-ICTY Evolves into an Association of Defense Counsel Practicing before International Courts and Tribunals,” Chima Ayokunle wrote:

As far back as November 2013 you advocated on your blog that ICC ‘List Counsel must form their own Bar’ and ‘Only a Bar of List Counsel, by List Counsel and for List Counsel, can legitimately and passionately advocate for the needs of List Counsel’ (https://michaelgkarnavas.net/blog/2013/11/11/why-establish-a-bar-of-list-counsel-of-the-international-criminal-court/)

After this you were chair of committee drafting the Constitution for a Bar at the ICC and then you ran for president of the ICCBA and didn’t succeed.

It seems a contradiction to me that now you suggest that there could be more than one association at the ICC. Why be involved in establishing the ICCBA if this existing association could do it?

I wonder whether your view would be the same if you had been elected as ICCBA president?

Grateful to Mr. Chima Ayokunle for his musings. My response: Continue reading “ADC and ICCBA: not a zero-sum game”

The ADC-ICTY Evolves into an Association of Defense Counsel Practicing before International Courts and Tribunals

On 16 December 2016, the Association of Defence Counsel Practising before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, commonly referred to as the ADC-ICTY, held a second General Assembly Meeting. The agenda had one item only: amending the ADC-ICTY Constitution to change the name of the ADC-ICTY to better reflect its function – effectively transforming it into an association for defense counsel practicing before international tribunals and courts. And so the ADC-ICTY Constitution was amended. Continue reading “The ADC-ICTY Evolves into an Association of Defense Counsel Practicing before International Courts and Tribunals”

The MICT model: panacea or chimera?

On 20 September 2016 a press release was issued by the United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (“MICT”), also referred to as “the Mechanism”, describing a presentation given by MICT President Judge Theodor Meron at The Hague Institute for Global Justice. The press release described President Meron’s view that the MICT presented itself as a new model for international justice. Under this model, courts could be more streamlined and cost-effective by having a roster of judges on call who would step into the breach only when needed, as opposed to being in situ, collecting a full-time salary with benefits. This model is likely the brave new world and is being advocated by some who are looking for alternatives or complements to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). Continue reading “The MICT model: panacea or chimera?”

ADC-ICTY Advocacy Training: Case Preparation, Direct and Cross-Examination

On 28 March 2015, the Association of Defence Counsel Practising Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ADC-ICTY) invited me to present a full day of Advocacy Training. The event was held from 9am to 7pm at the ICTY in The Hague, The Netherlands. The aim of the training day was to help guide legal professionals through the process of preparing a case and to provide tips and approaches for direct and cross-examination. I also re-examined the core principles of evidence and objections that were covered in the Defence Symposium on 12 March 2015. Continue reading “ADC-ICTY Advocacy Training: Case Preparation, Direct and Cross-Examination”

Evidence and Objections: ADC-ICTY Defence Symposium

You need to know the WHY in order to know the WHEN;
but if you do not know the HOW,
knowing the WHY and WHEN will be of no help.

On Thursday 12 March 2015, I conducted a Defence Symposium as part of the Advocacy Training at the Association of Defence Counsel Practising Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ADC-ICTY”). The topic was “Evidence and Objections”. The two-hour Symposium covered general principles and types of evidence, and how, why and when to make objections. The objective was to familiarize young lawyers, especially those coming from a civil law system, with the general evidentiary principles one is likely to encounter during a trial at one of the international criminal tribunals.

Introduction

I began by highlighting two critical obligations of Counsel: due diligence and making the record. These obligations to the client cannot be stressed enough. Counsel must satisfy the duty of due diligence to ensure the client’s fair trial rights are protected. One element of being due diligent is to make timely and specific objections that preserve the errors for appeal, i.e. making the record. Since on appeal we are bound by the four corners of the record, failure to preserve errors in the record at the time when the errors were made can be fatal to a possible appeal. God may know but the record must show.((Jones v. Vacco, 126 F.3d 408, 417 (2d Cir. 1997).)) Continue reading “Evidence and Objections: ADC-ICTY Defence Symposium”

The ADC-ICTY Publishes its Legacy Conference Proceedings

In 2002 Defence Counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) formed the Association of Defence Counsel Practicing Before the ICTY (ADC-ICTY) to assist in promoting the fairness of the proceedings and to protect the interests of Defence Counsel. Eleven years later and after countless accomplishments, the ADC-ICTY held its Legacy Conference on 29 November 2013. And now the ADC-ICTY has published the Legacy Conference Proceedings, making it available online. Privileged to moderate the panel on the Rights of the Accused, I followed up with a short article, The Rights of the Accused, intending to capture the essence of the fair trial rights Defence Counsel endeavor to ensure for all suspects and accused appearing before international criminal tribunals.

The Diligence That Is Due: Making the Record & Perfecting Grounds for Appeal

While we do not believe the trial judge testified untruthfully, we recognize that the written word in the record is ‘black and white’ evidence of what did or did not occur, whereas an individual’s recollection of those same events blur into gray. This case demonstrates the validity of an old legal truism: God may know but the record must show.

Jones v. Vacco, 126 F.3d 408, 417 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).

On 18 June 2014, I delivered the third installment of a lecture series on ethics to members of the Association of Defence Counsel Practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ADC-ICTY) and others. The previous lectures were on Judicial Ethics in the International Tribunals and Conflicts of Interest. This lecture focused on due diligence and the imperative of perfecting the record by properly preserving all potential errors for appellate review. The lecture lasted 2 hours. Certificates were issued to the participants for those who wished to claim 2 hours of CLE credits on ethics with their national / state bar. Continue reading “The Diligence That Is Due: Making the Record & Perfecting Grounds for Appeal”

ADC-ICTY LECTURE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

“‘Conflict of interests’ is a term that is often used and seldom defined.” ¹

Michael Karnavas delivers ADC-ICTY Confilcts Lecture

On 16 April 2014 I was invited by the Association of Defence Counsel practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ADC-ICTY) to conduct training for its members and others on ethics. The topic chosen was Conflicts of Interest. The lecture lasted 2 hours. A modest PowerPoint presentation was used to guide the lecture which was based on handout material made available after the lecture. Certificates were also issued to the participants for those who wished to claim 2 hours of CLE on ethics with their national / state bar.

The lecture focused on the lawyer’s core responsibilities to the client in both national and international jurisdictions: competence, diligence, communication, confidentiality, loyalty, honesty, and independence. Principles that are universal.

Continue reading “ADC-ICTY LECTURE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST”

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 356 (1980) (United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, dissenting). [↩]

Eighth and Final Installment: JUDICIAL ETHICS IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

This is the eighth, and final installment, in a series of posts drawn from a 24 January 2014 lecture on Judicial Ethics at the ADC-ICTY’s Twelfth Defence Symposium for interns and staff at the ICTY. The complete document is available on my website.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

H. The Obligations of Defence Counsel in exercising due diligence

Lastly, I discussed obligations that also lie with Defence counsel. Indeed, Defence counsel have to be diligent to raise disqualifications early in the proceedings and to the right authority. I put the accent on how important is to make the record. I used the Čelebići case as an example in which the issue was whether a Judge was fit to be a Judge.

ICTY Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (Čelebići), The Case of the sleeping Judge, and the Defence’s failure to raise

In Čelebići, Judge Karibi-Whyte was sleeping during substantial portions the trial proceedings.[1] Defence counsel for Landžo did not formally raise this issue before the Trial Chamber but filed this issue as a ground of appeal.[2] Counsel for Landžo explained the failure to raise this issue during trial proceedings stating that she had approached “this sensitive issue in the most diplomatic way possible.”[3] Indeed, Counsel for Landžo had first raised the issue with the Registrar and President of the ICTY Judge Cassese rather than in court: Continue reading “Eighth and Final Installment: JUDICIAL ETHICS IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS”