The Essential Contributions of Support Staff in International Defense
An Interview with Cécile Lecolle
Edited by Cailan Cumming, Kate Gibson & Paul R. Williams
A Note on Defending Justice
This blog is part of the Defending Justice series, an initiative of the Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) to promote an eclectic array of voices within the field of international criminal law.
As part of our broader efforts to strengthen institutions of justice, this series seeks to create space for dialogue around the varied perspectives and concerns that shape these institutions. With that aim in mind, we interviewed a series of defense practitioners working in international criminal law and distilled their experiences and insights into a series of first-person blogs, preserving the spirit and voice of those interviews.
Editor’s Note
Justice in international criminal law is not solely determined by the strength of arguments or the weight of evidence—it is also shaped by those working behind the scenes. Support staff, often unseen and underappreciated, play a decisive role in the defense of the accused. Through the work of Cécile Lecolle, an experienced case manager and legal assistant, this blog explores the reality of defense support work in some of the most high-profile international criminal cases. Lecolle’s career demonstrates not only the immense responsibilities carried by support staff but also the broader inequities in international justice, including resource imbalances between the prosecution and defense, failures in disclosing exculpatory evidence, and the persistent stigma surrounding defense work.
Introduction
My journey spans from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to the International Criminal Court and beyond. With a background in international public law and a specialization in international humanitarian law, I began my career with an internship at the ICTY, assisting in the judgment writing, and participating in the work of the Presiding Judge on his separate opinion in the Šešelj case.
In one of the most contentious trials in the ICTY’s history, the Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj was charged with incitement to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Šešelj’s inflammatory speeches and recruitment efforts fueled ethnic violence during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. His speeches called for the expulsion of Croats, Muslims, and other non-Serb populations, and he was accused of organizing paramilitary groups that committed atrocities. Ultimately, the trial sparked widespread debate about the limits of free speech and the burden of proof required to establish accountability for crimes of incitement.
Motivated to deepen my understanding of international criminal law, I pursued another internship with the defense team for Jean-Pierre Bemba at the ICC. The Bemba case, which involved allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Central African Republic, demonstrated to me the immense challenges defense teams face in managing extensive evidence. This work led to a paid position as a case manager, where I continued contributing to the Bemba case through the appeal stage. My career path then took me to the Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, where I worked as a case manager and legal assistant in Arusha. I later joined the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence at the ICC, conducting legal research for defense counsel on complicated and/or novel legal questions.
My involvement as a legal assistant in the Al Hassan defense team at the ICC, which addressed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Mali, further shaped my career. Al Hassan ag Abdoul Aziz, a former member of Ansar Dine, an Islamist armed group, was charged with crimes committed during the occupation of Timbuktu. The case represented a significant step in addressing crimes that target cultural and historical identity as violations of international law.
In the Mokom case, I again acted as a legal assistant and supported the defense team through its pre-trial phase. Maxime Mokom, a leader in the Anti-Balaka militia in the Central African Republic, was accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, deportation, and persecution. The ICC Prosecutor dropped all charges against Mr. Mokom after the hearing on the confirmation of charges, citing insufficient evidence. This case taught me the importance of exculpatory evidence in preserving the integrity of the judicial process.
I currently work as a legal assistant on the Kony defense team, focusing on the pre-trial phase of the case against Joseph Kony, alleged leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central and East Africa. Mr. Kony faces charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, enslavement, and forced enlistment of child soldiers. His case has drawn international attention as the first in absentia confirmation of charges hearing at the ICC, raising significant concerns regarding the rights of the accused and right to a fair trial. In addition to my role in the Kony case, I continue to offer pro bono support to other cases and work part time in France as an Associate Judge at the National Court of Asylum.
For me, defense work is both deeply rewarding and profoundly challenging. It is a formative and multifaceted pursuit, shaped by setbacks, stigma, administrative hurdles, and the ongoing struggle to uphold the rights of the accused. Despite these obstacles, my commitment to the field of defense continues, and I hope this blog provides meaningful insight into the contributions of those who work behind the scenes of the Defense in international criminal tribunals.
The Role of Support Staff
In international criminal defense, support staff play a crucial and varied role, supporting counsel in every aspect of the case. From the initial stages of case preparation to the final stages of trial, support staff are integral in ensuring that defense teams are able to effectively represent the accused. There is a wide variety of roles within the support staff: interns, visiting professionals, case managers, legal assistants, assistants to counsel, and language assistants. Regardless of the title, most team members contribute broadly to many areas of the case. Whether researching legal precedent, analyzing evidence, discussing strategy with the client, managing case files, or preparing witnesses for testimony, support staff are deeply involved in the case’s progression.
Interns and visiting professionals are typically in the early stages of their careers looking to learn about the work of the ICC and in the case of visiting professionals, applying their specialized knowledge to an area of work. Language assistants are hired to help translate and analyze evidence and court documents in multiple languages, which is essential in ensuring that all evidence is correctly interpreted. Case managers, the first entry-level position within a defense team, are in charge of organizing and managing the case file. They are responsible for tracking deadlines, scheduling meetings, managing communications with the ICC Registry, and handling any administrative tasks. Most case managers are also involved in legal work, such as evidence review and legal research, contributing to the overall case strategy.
Legal assistants typically have several years of experience in the field and are entrusted with more substantial legal responsibilities. They may assist with drafting legal documents, preparing witnesses, reviewing evidence, and even speaking in court, including questioning or cross-examining witnesses. Assistants to counsel have even more legal experience, and their work is often more strategic. They are trusted to take on the most complex legal tasks, contributing significantly to case strategy and court proceedings.
One of the most significant responsibilities of support staff is managing evidence. This includes receiving documents from the prosecution, and then organizing, classifying, analyzing, and linking these documents together. This process is especially critical in the pre-trial phase, where understanding and becoming familiar with all the evidence is imperative before stepping into the courtroom. Organizing this mountain of information is no small task, and it requires immense attention to detail and a deep understanding of the case at hand. This is a central part of the work, and one that often requires long hours and a level of dedication that goes beyond the normal working day.
Support staff also often develop close relationships to the client, in some cases spending as much time with them as the rest of the defense team. Legal assistants, in particular, have privileged access to the client, which allows them to have confidential phone calls and visits, and means they are involved in many of the meetings between the support staff and the client. These interactions are at the heart of the defense team’s work, allowing support staff to gain insights into the client’s experiences, provide explanations of legal filings, discuss specific pieces of evidence or allegations, and ensure that they are well-informed and comfortable throughout the process.
Support staff can also play a role in shaping the defense strategy. As the team members who are often most intimately familiar with the case file, support staff serve as the “memory” of the case. By organizing filings, tracking correspondence, evaluating witness statements, and creating links between the evidence and charges, Counsel depend on the support staff to locate information, and be able to recall what has been decided or submitted throughout the case. Over time, as support staff remain involved in a case, they develop an understanding of the geographical, political, and contextual elements surrounding the case and gain fluency in the court’s rules, procedures, and functions. This combination of knowledge enables support staff to play an increasing role in shaping defense strategies.
To succeed in the role, support staff must possess several key qualities. Time management, organization, and the ability to work well within a team are crucial for success in the fast-paced environment of international criminal defense. Communication skills, both in writing and verbally, are essential, as is the capacity for analytical thinking and attention to detail. Support staff must also understand the law and legal rules and be able to acquire new knowledge as needed. Finally, the support role requires patience, professionalism, and a strong ethical foundation, with individuals that trust themselves and others on the team.
These kinds of qualities enable support staff to successfully confront the challenges faced by defense teams. With little to no formal training available, they are often required to learn on the job—adapting quickly, acquiring new skills, and applying them daily under pressure. The fast pace of cases and the wide-ranging responsibilities leave no choice but to learn quickly and perform to a consistently high standard. Given that defense teams are typically much smaller than prosecution teams, support staff often carry a broader and more diverse workload. The exposure to all aspects of a case allows for significant professional growth, even if it is at the cost of long working hours and limited benefits.
Effective Case Management in Complex International Crimes Cases
In complex international criminal proceedings, effective case management is the backbone of a well-functioning defense team. At the helm of this process stands the case manager. The case manager is the architect of the case file—an extensive and living repository of everything related to the proceedings. The case file includes correspondence, filings, administrative decisions, meeting notes, client communications, witness folders, transcripts of hearings, evidentiary material, legal research, and more. Materials must be accessible, well-indexed, and tracked. Evidence is analyzed and categorized by type, geography, theme, event, or linkage to other evidence or witnesses. The evidence is also evaluated for chronology, provenance, legal weight, and relevance. The case file is not simply a folder of documents; it is the map of the case. Every team member relies on the case file to navigate the complex legal and factual terrain of their case. And when created with care and precision, it becomes the most important tool the team possesses.
Case managers also serve as the defense team’s timekeepers. They are responsible for maintaining a detailed calendar that reflects internal work plans, disclosure deadlines, filing submissions, scheduled hearings, and key procedural windows for legal actions. For example, when the defense team files a motion, the case manager tracks the deadline for the response, whether a reply is permitted, and if there is a right for the defense to appeal or request leave to appeal.
While the ICC provides digital tools for case management, these platforms are complex and far from intuitive. The training available for these tools is limited and often unavailable, leaving case managers to become familiar with the technology on their own. The learning curve is steep, and yet the volume of material to be managed is immense. It is not uncommon for a case to involve tens or hundreds of thousands of documents, plus hours upon hours of audio and video footage.
These challenges are exacerbated by inadequate disclosure by the prosecution. Under Article 54 of the Rome Statute, the prosecution is obliged to investigate both incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally and disclose relevant material to the defense. However, no defense team at the ICC would argue that this is done thoroughly or consistently. The prosecution may miss key exculpatory evidence, either because of oversight, bias in their strategy, or a fundamental lack of understanding of defense theory. Consequently, defense teams must sift through everything themselves—doing the same work as the prosecution, but in much less time and with fewer people.
During the pre-trial phase in the case against Maxime Mokom at the ICC, for example, the prosecution initially disclosed a set of documents it deemed exculpatory. Upon review, the defense identified numerous additional items that clearly fell within that category but had not been flagged. The Pre-Trial Chamber agreed and ordered the prosecution to repeat the disclosure process, ultimately leading to the identification of hundreds more exculpatory items. But by that time, only two months remained before the confirmation of charges hearing. The defense team then had to work under enormous time pressure to incorporate this evidence into its presentation. In the end, the charges against Mr. Mokom were dropped due to a lack of a reasonable prospect of conviction—a result owed in no small part to the work of the support staff in identifying and elevating exculpatory evidence.
The Mokom case illustrates that much of the critical work begins at the level of case management, and a strong case manager can make the difference between a case going forward or not. While Counsel focuses on shaping legal arguments and testing the prosecution’s evidence, they rely on the integrity and completeness of the information assembled and analyzed by their team. This trust means that the work of case managers carries immense responsibility. The volume of work is staggering and the stakes are high, but when carried with care, this role becomes one of the most impactful in the courtroom.
Inequality of Arms
The structure and day-to-day work of the defense and prosecution teams in international criminal proceedings are markedly different. Prosecution teams are typically larger and far more specialized. Within a single prosecution team, there may be dedicated units for forensics, disclosure, information technology, mapping, and more. A team member in the prosecution might work full-time on one specific task, such as reviewing metadata or linking evidence to charges. In contrast, defense support staff are expected to juggle a wide array of responsibilities, often all on the same day. During the trial phase of a large case, a defense team may increase to 13–14 people, but more commonly consists of just 6–7 individuals. These include a Lead Counsel, one to three Co-Counsels (who may not be full-time), one Assistant to Counsel, a few Legal Assistants, one or two Case Managers, a Language Assistant, and a handful of interns or visiting professionals.
Though the different mandates of prosecution and defense may justify some variation in support, the disparity in resourcing and staffing can significantly impact the defense’s ability to do its job properly and efficiently. The prosecution often begins working on a case years before the defense is even assigned. They know their witnesses, their theory of the case, and how to proceed. Meanwhile, defense teams need to quickly acquire knowledge that the prosecution has had years of time to develop, such as the political and military context, the actors involved, the structure of the state, and the broader social and conflict history. There may already be thousands of pieces of evidence, hundreds of witness statements, and years of investigative work that must be gone through in a matter of months. For instance, when the defense team was appointed to represent the interests of Mr. Kony before the ICC, the case file already contained over 400 filings—representing years of litigation and procedural development that had occurred without any defense involvement.
Prosecution teams also benefit from significantly greater funding for investigations, enabling greater fact-finding and evidence gathering than defense teams. In some cases, the sheer scale of the evidence even challenges the bench. In the case against former Côte d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo, Trial Judge Geoffrey A. Henderson noted that he was unable to read the entirety of the prosecution’s case file within the timeframe given. He reflected that in his home jurisdiction of Trinidad and Tobago, he had never sat a trial without having reviewed all the evidence, and found this treatment of evidence deeply unsatisfactory. All of this affects the defense’s ability to respond fully and fairly—an imbalance that can have real consequences for the outcome of proceedings.
Beyond structural disadvantages, the defense also faces persistent stigma and unequal treatment within the international community. There remains a deep-rooted perception—among other legal professionals, NGOs, and even court officials—that the defense teams are merely an extension of the accused. In the Bemba case, for example, our experience in court was marked by clear hostility. Some members of the prosecution and legal representatives exhibited open disdain for Mr. Bemba, which extended to outright animosity toward the defense.
This stigma persists even in academic and professional settings. At legal conferences, defense practitioners have faced accusations of dishonesty, procedural gamesmanship, or obstructionism—accusations that would never be made against the prosecution. Yet the defense simply does their jobs within the same legal framework and in the same pursuit of justice and due process. The defense is, quite literally, half of the courtroom and, as such, an indispensable pillar of the justice system.
However, there has been some progress regarding support to the defense in recent years. In 2022, defense support staff staged a strike and protested during the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) in The Hague, calling for better working conditions. The demonstration was a response to the lack of basic social protections for defense workers—protections that are afforded to ICC staff, including the prosecution. At that time, support staff had no rights to sick leave, holidays, parental leave, or retirement benefits. Defense personnel worked tirelessly, but without any institutional protection.
The protest aimed to pressure the ICC Registry and the ASP into revising the legal aid policy that was established in 2016. Those of us who were allowed to protest by their Counsel were banned from entering the Assembly, cutting off any opportunity to educate and advocate for our interests with state representatives. Nonetheless, the strike and protest proved to be an inflection point. For the first time, many people, even within the ICC, learned about the real working conditions of defense support staff and had greater sympathy for our cause.
Following the strike and demonstrations, there have been incremental improvements in the legal aid policy. As of 2024, defense support staff now enjoy certain employment rights, such as guaranteed holidays, parental leave, and slightly increased salaries. However, major imbalances persist. Support staff still lack pay parity with similarly positioned professionals in the prosecution, and it is unclear whether our salaries will be adjusted for inflation as theirs are. In 2022, there was a 35–40% pay gap between identical positions across the two teams—and this gap has not been closed.
Poor treatment can also extend to internal team dynamics. Junior support staff are especially vulnerable to harassment, overwork, and lack of protections. Many are expected to work excessive hours without sufficient leave and, due to their precarious status, are often unable to speak up. Their working conditions depend on the goodwill and management of their Counsel. Even excellent Counsel may have no training or background in team leadership, which can lead to mismanagement over the five to seven years that cases can last.
Although the Registry has acknowledged some of the concerns raised by support staff, it has rarely followed up with concrete action or demonstrated genuine concern—failing in its responsibility to protect defense professionals from institutional vulnerability. The 2022 protests brought greater visibility to the struggles of defense support staff, and some improvements followed, but defense teams remain institutionally disadvantaged, undervalued, and under-resourced. These imbalances not only affect the defense’s ability to do their jobs, but also have serious implications for the fairness and integrity of international justice.
Conclusion
Support staff play a vital yet often unappreciated role in international criminal defense. There is immense pressure placed on them: from the overwhelming volume of evidence and unworkable short timeframes, to the lack of resources, and for years, basic employment protections. These dynamics can lead to burnout and even mistreatment, with few avenues for recourse. And yet, it is within this high-pressure environment that many support staff experience rapid professional growth. Despite these challenges, support staff demonstrate exceptional adaptability and dedication, contributing meaningfully to major international cases from early on in their careers. Looking forward, it is essential to reframe how defense support staff are seen—not as junior assistants, but as essential professionals in the international justice system. Ensuring that they are treated with fairness, respect, trust, and professionalism is not only a matter of equitable treatment, but a prerequisite for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the defense.