Defence lawyers at UN tribunal suspend strike

Defence lawyers at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) suspended their strike on Friday, after receiving assurances from the tribunal's registry that some of their demands would be met and "serious" negotiations would begin. The two-day strike, which had paralysed several cases at the tribunal based in the northern Tanzanian town of Arusha, ended after the registry granted that searches of defence counsel at the UN Detention Facility would cease and the agreement of the registry to enter into "serious negotiations" with respect to the committee's 15 immediate demands, a crisis committee of the defence lawyers said. The lawyers said that they would reconsider the suspension or the continuation of the strike on 6 February. While agreeing to enter into negotiations, the committee also drew up a list of "the structural problems which prevent a fair trial that remain and are yet to be discussed". The registry responded on Thursday to claims raised by defence lawyers who went on strike on Wednesday, claiming that their clients were being denied the right to a fair trial. Despite noting that a letter written to it by the defence lawyers on Tuesday as a basis for the strike had not been issued by the Association of Defence Counsel (ADAD), an organisation recognised by the tribunal, the registry responded to the concerns raised by the lawyers. In a statement, the registry said that upon receipt of the letter, the tribunal's president held a meeting with the representatives of the lawyers. "In the meeting, the representatives stated that their group is composed of all defence counsel present in Arusha who are members and non-members of ADAD and that the existence of the group would be only for the duration of the strike," it said. It added that during the meeting, the registry had expressed its willingness to discuss the concerns listed by the lawyers, "provided that the strike is called off, since there was no prior discussion on those issues with the group". Among the issues the defence lawyers had raised were that of the status of legal assistants and investigators; the lawyers' work schedules and billing procedures; the presence of lead and co-counsel during delivery of judgement; excessive searches conducted on lawyers entering the UN Detention Facility where their clients are held; and payment of legal costs. The registry confirmed its position on defence investigators not being present in Arusha during trial sessions, because they were recruited to perform specific duties in the field - to gather information for the defence and report to the lead counsel. "They are not employed to translate documents from or into Kinyarwanda," the registry said. "They are not even allowed to sit with those officially working in the chamber during trial." The registry added that the lead counsel, co-counsel, the legal assistant and the accused were equipped to tackle issues arising from prosecution witnesses whose statements had been previously disclosed to the defence. Regarding the lawyers' work schedules, which the lawyers had said were refused or reduced on unacceptable grounds of inappropriateness or untimeliness, the registry said its legal aid budget was not "open-ended", and that at the end of the year it had to account to the UN General Assembly on how it handled the tribunal's Legal Aid Fund. "They [lawyers] have to demonstrate that the amount expended was reasonable and necessary for the defence of the accused persons who are indigent," the registry said. As for the presence of lead and co-counsel during delivery of judgement, the registry said it did not find the requirement necessary, as "the trial chamber only reads out a summary of the judgement with a caveat that only the full text of the judgement would be made available later." With regard to the lawyers' concern over the payment of legal costs, in respect of which they had complained that their bills were taxed, the registry responded that the tribunal's rules gave the registrar the responsibility to decide who were indigent suspects, to assign defence counsel to the detainees and to determine how the defence counsel would be paid. "The registrar cannot be a disinterested bystander who would just pay all manner of bills without ascertaining their validity," the registry said. Regarding the security measures at the detention facility, which, the lawyers had said were a violation of their dignity, the registry said the measures applied to all visitors to the facility and were necessary for security and order. "However, without compromising the security of the detention facility and bearing in mind Rule 97(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the registry is prepared to consider alleviating the search operational procedures so that body search is no longer conducted on lead counsel and co-counsel," it said.