Defence counsel contempt controversy

Milan Vujin, one of the defence counsels of Nedjo Samardzic who was last week found guilty of crimes against humanity, was himself previously found guilty of contempt of court by the Hague tribunal, BIRN’s Justice Report has learned.

Legal experts and professional in Bosnia and Herzegovina have told Justice Report that lawyers with tainted track records should not be allowed to practice in front of the war crimes chamber in Sarajevo.

But they explained that a lack of precision in the rules of procedure that offer guidelines to judges and defence lawyers seeking to serve at the Sarajevo court had allowed Vujin to get through the loophole.

Vujin, who is registered with the Bar Association of Serbia, appeared in the defence team of Dusko Tadic, the first war criminal to be processed by the Hague tribunal. Tadic was a guard in the notorious Omarska camp and was sentenced to 20 years for war crimes committed in the northwestern Bosnian town of Prijedor in 1992.

At the beginning of the proceedings, Vujin appeared as part of the defence team lead by lawyer Michail Wladimiroff.

Vujin relinquished this position very soon after, due to what he described as poor knowledge of the English language.

But shortly before the judgment was pronounced, Tadic fired Wladimiroff and replaced him with Vujin as his lead counsel.

Vujin went on to file an appeal against the tribunal’s judgment but by late 1998, before the appeals chamber had made its ruling, Tadic discharged Vujin and replaced him with William Clegg and John Livingston.

In January 1999, the new defence team amended the appeal filed by Vujin and accused the former counsel of “gravely prejudicing” the fair trial Tadic was entitled to.

In February of that year, the appeals chamber invited Vujin to respond to allegations that he had acted “in contempt of the international tribunal in that he knowingly and wilfully intended thereby to interfere with the administration of justice”.

The allegations were made by Tadic and his new defence counsel in connection with Vujin’s conduct in connection with the appeal.

Vujin was accused of: “(i) telling persons about to give statements toco-counsel for [Tadic] what they should or should not say before they were interviewed by [Witness D], and in effect instructing them to lie to [WitnessD]; (ii) nodding his head to indicate to witnesses, during witness interviews with [Witness D], when to say yes and when to say no; (iii) interfering with witnesses in a manner which dissuaded them from telling the truth; (iv) knowingly instructing a witness to make false declarations in a statement to the international tribunal; and (v) paying a person giving a statement money when pleased with the information provided, but not paying him when he did not answer as instructed […].”

“Witness D” was in fact a co-counsel of Vujin’s working on the Tadic appeal.

Vujin denied all allegations made against him. However, during the twelve month-long contempt hearing, many witnesses offered evidence in support of them is conduct allegations.

The most controversial allegation was made by a Belgrade journalist, Milovan Brkic, supported by Tadic’s brother Mladen, both of whom claimed Vujin was a”regime lawyer”.

The Serbian government, then still under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic, at the time refused to recognise the Hague tribunal and would not allow any cooperation.

In his testimony to the appeals chamber, Brkic claimed that he had proof that Vujin had manipulated the evidence and undermined Tadic’s defence. He claimed he had sight of the documents of the Security Service to which Vujin, like other Serbian lawyers involved, allegedly submitted reports about his work in The Hague.

Although the appeals chamber dismissed Brkic’stestimony, it did accept similar allegations made by Tadic’s first lead counsel Wladimiroff.

In his testimony, Wladimiroff said that he had been “driven him to the conclusion that [Vujin] was in reality taking care of the interests of the Serb authorities and was not truly interested in defending Tadic except insofar as the interests of Tadic coincided with those of the authorities”.

After a year of deliberations, in January 2000, the Hague tribunal’s appeals chamber found Vujin guilty of two out of five charges on contempt.

They ruled that Vujin did put forward as evidence “a case which was known to him to be false”. He was also found guilty of “manipulating Witnesses A and B by seeking to avoid any identification by them in statements of their evidence of persons who may have been responsible for the crimes for which Tadic had been convicted”.

The tribunal ordered Vujin to pay a fine of 15,000 Dutch Guilders and directed the Hague’s Registrar “to consider striking him off the list of assigned counsel … and reporting his conduct as found by the appeals chamber to the professional body to which he belongs”.

The professional body to which Vujin belongs is the Bar Association of Serbia. At the time of contempt findings, he was its president. Vujin was never disciplined by the association although its codex on ethics stipulates that all of its members must be of “high professional and moral ground” even when practicing outside of the country’s borders.

The next high profile case in which Vujin appeared as defence counsel was that of Milorad Ulemek Legija, the controversial Serbian underground character accused of assassinating of Serbian president Zoran Djindjic. He was removed from that position three months after taking it.

In 2006, Vujin appeared as a defence counsel for Nedjo Samardzic, the Bosnian Serb facing charges of crimes against humanity in connection with murder and rape committed in Foca in 1992 and 1993. His law firm «Vujin» was appointed “ex officio” by the Sarajavo war crimes chamber in February this year.

In a decision on the appointment, the presiding judge in Samardzic case, Zorica Gogala, wrote that «Vujin» law firm was representing Samardzic while his case was still in front of the district court of Trebinje.

The Sarajevo chamber later took over the casein accordance with its authority to try «highly sensitive» cases.

The three Serbian lawyers from Vujin law firm, Milan Vujin, Slavisa Prodanovic and Mara Pilipovic were hired by Samardzic for the purposes of defence in front of the Trebinje court.

By the time his case was transferred to the Court of BiH, Samardzic had requested that the same defence team is appointed «ex officio» because due to poor material situation he could not afford the many more».

But many experts and legal professionals including the court’s own staff believe that a person convicted of contempt should never have been allowed to practice in front of the chamber.

“Only those meeting international standards, with a clean character and high professional standards, should be allowed to appear before the chamber,” one international court employee told Justice Report on condition of anonymity.

With the creation of the war crimes chamber and all its pillars, a criminal defence section – OKO – was formed within the Registry and is tasked with providing legal and administrative support to lawyers practicing in front of the court.

OKO is also tasked with establishing the criteria applicant lawyers must fulfilif they wish to appear in front of the chamber.

The “additional rules of procedure for defence advocates” was adopted by the plenum of judges in June last year “in order to ensure the higher standards of representation before the court”.

The rules require lawyers to demonstrate a certain amount of knowledge of relevant laws before being allowed to appear before the chamber.

However, the current rules that regulate the criteria do not include a section dealing with the applicants’ ethical and criminal record.

OKO director Rupert Skillbeck told Justice Report that the criminal defence section had considered putting such criteria in the rules, but that the current legal structure prevented them from doing so.

“There was a discussion where we considered putting our own requirements on ethical standards but the law reserves disciplining of lawyers to the two bar associations,” Skillbeck said. “We therefore cannot have any role in disciplinary procedure.”

The two bar associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina are divided on entity basis with one based in Republika Srpska and the other in the Federation. Justice Report has found that Vujin is not a member of either.

However, the law on the court of Bosnia and Herzegovina allows lawyers who do not fulfil the normal criteria to be specially admitted. This means that the court may admit lawyers who are not on the list of authorised personnel “when it is in the interest of justice to do so” and that foreign lawyers can be admitted “when their expertise and fair trial rights demand it”.

The decision of the Court of BiH in which Vujin is appointed as defence counsel, states that the Federation Ministry of Justice gave Vujin’s law firm a permission to represent the accused on the territory of BiH. The permission was issued on December 6, 2004.

Justice Report tried but failed to reach Milan Vujin during the week to commenton the case.

The Court of BiH also refused to comment on the issue but highly placed sources in the institution have told Justice Report that they may now reconsider ammending its rules on appointment of defence counsels.