MR. KAY AND MS. HIGGINS ASSIGNED AS MILOSEVIC'S LAWYERS
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - September 2, 2004

The Hague Tribunal issued an order on Thursday to impose two defense lawyers on Slobodan Milosevic against his will.

Milosevic, who has been firm on rejecting the idea of having lawyers present his defense, was strongly opposed to the decision.

Milosevic said, “This is an illegal decision, a breach of international rights, of all conventions and human rights. At the very moment when I am exercising my right to defense, you deprive me of those rights. This is a scandal.”
 

"I want the appeals chamber to consider this decision of yours, which is illegal, which violates international law, which violates every conceivable covenant on human rights," Milosevic told the tribunal. "You cannot deny me the right to defend myself."

The chief prosecutor in the case, Geoffrey Nice, welcomed the decision by the tribunal, saying that the conduct of the defense case and the choice of witnesses must be fully at the discretion of the court-appointed defense attorney.

Two Britons, Steven Kay QC and fellow barrister Gillian Higgins were named by the tribunal as defense counsel for Milosevic.

Until now the two have had the status of amicus curiae, or friends of the court.

Mr. Kay was called to the Bar in 1977 and was appointed a QC in 1997.

He is a recorder, or part-time judge, in the Crown court and a founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association.

He has also been defense counsel at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in the case of Alfred Musema.

Ms Higgins was called to the Bar in 1997.

She was legal assistant to Mr. Kay in the Musema case at the ICTR and also to Diana Ellis QC in the defense of Ferdinand Nahimana, also at the ICTR.
 

The tribunal plans to start calling witnesses and showing evidences for Milosevic's defense case on Sept. 7, next Tuesday.

In a submission filed before the court last month, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins had opposed the imposition of a lawyer on Milosevic. According to their August 6th submission, forcing Milosevic to work with a lawyer could backfire and "constitute significant grounds for appeal."

Their submission stated, "In the absence of instructions from the accused, an imposed lawyer would not be in a position to positively advance a defense or contest evidence during the trial."

They stated that Milosevic must be free to represent himself, "even if he knowingly risks his own health in the process. That choice cannot be taken from him."

"The imposition of unwanted counsel upon an unwilling defendant who refuses to cooperate may in fact lead to increased stress for the defendant who continues to assert his right to self-representation," the Aug. 6 brief said.

In light of their previous submission, and their self-admitted inability to "positively advance a defense or contest evidence." The only acceptable course of action is for Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins to refuse the tribunal's order and resign from the case.
 

# # #