In its decision on the issue of conflict of interest, the trial chamber ruled that Separovic "has a personal interest in the case which disqualifies him as counsel". The trial chamber believes that Separovic is likely to be called as a witness because of his personal knowledge from the time relevant to the indictment in the case "Gotovina, Cermak and Markac".
Explaining its conclusions in a lengthy decision, the trial chamber said that Separovic's personal knowledge included his claims that former Croatian President Franjo Tudjman did not give any instructions not to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes committed against Serb population, as well as that he was a relevant witness for the issue of jurisdiction over the work of military courts.
The question of whether the ministry of defence, or rather the ministry of justice and Separovic as justice minister, were responsible for the work of those courts was the basis for the trial chamber's decision on the existence of conflict of interest on the part of Separovic.
The issue of possible conflict of interest with regard to Separovic representation cropped up last year when the defence team of General Ante Gotovina, opposing the tribunal's decision to join his case with that of Cermak and Markac, cited possible conflict of interest on the part of Separovic because it mentioned the possibility of calling Separovic as a witness considering the fact that he was justice minister at the time relevant to the indictment against Gen. Gotovina.
Acting on this motion, the Appeals Chamber called on Separovic to withdraw from the case because of the conflict of his roles as attorney and potential witness.
Separovic claimed that he was not a necessary witness and that his withdrawing from Markac's defence team would cause irreparable damage to his client's defence. He refused to withdraw from the proceedings of his own accord.
The trial chamber in the case warned Separovic that by persisting in representing Markac he had jeopardised his client's interest by not withdrawing earlier in the proceedings and thus had failed to meet the standards of professional ethics.
The trial chamber called on the attorney to explain, at a hearing perviously scheduled for Wednesday, why it should not take further action against him.