WorldCourts: International Case Law Database   International Case Law Database
50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions
Lasva Valley, Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al., Decision on Motion for the Provisional Release of Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic or Separation of Proceedings, IT-95-16-A (ICTY AC, Apr. 24, 2001)


Judge Patricia Wald, Presiding
Judge Lal Chand Vohrah
Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia
Judge Fausto Pocar
Judge Liu Daqun

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
24 April 2001







Counsel for the Prosecutor:

Mr. Upawansa Yapa

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Ranko Radovic, Mr. Tomislav Pasaric for Zoran Kupreškic
Ms. Jadranka Slokovic-Glumac, Ms. Desanka Vranjican for Mirjan Kupreskic
Mr. Anthony Abell, Mr. John Livingston for Vlatko Kupreskic
Mr. Luka Šušak, Ms. Goranka Herljevic for Drago Josipovic
Mr. Petar Pavkovic, Mr. Mirko Vrdoljak for Vladimir Šantic


THE APPEALS CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("the International Tribunal");

NOTING that Zoran and Mirjan Kupreškic (“the Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal before the Appeals Chamber on 27 February 2000 and 28 February 2000 respectively;

BEING SEISED of a "Motion for Provisional Release of Zoran and Mirjan Kupreškic or Separation of Proceedings” filed by counsel for the Appellants confidential and ex parte on 22 February 2001 ("the Motion"), which requests:

  1. the provisional release of the Appellants pursuant to Rule 65(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("the Rules") ("the Request for Provisional Release"); or alternatively,
  2. that Appellants’ appeals from the Judgement of 14 January 2000 should be separated from the appeals of the co-appellants pursuant to Rule 82(B) of the Rules ("the Request for Separation");

NOTING that the reasons submitted in the Motion for granting the Request for Provisional Release rely to a large extent on material disclosed to the Appellants which is claimed to be exculpatory in nature ("the material");

NOTING the "Prosecution Response to Motion of Appellants Zoran and Mirjan Kupreškic for Provisional Release or Separation of Proceedings" filed confidential and ex parte by the Office of the Prosecutor ("the Prosecution") on 2 March 2001 ("the Response"), which submits that the Request for Provisional Release and the Request for Separation be denied;

CONSIDERING that Rule 65(I) provides that the Appeals Chamber may grant provisional release to convicted persons pending appeal if satisfied that the persons will appear at the hearing and will not pose a danger to any victim, witness or other person;

NOTING that the Request for Provisional Release relies largely on the material in relation to which the Appeals Chamber may have to make a decision as to whether or not it may be admitted under Rule 115 of the Rules as additional evidence on appeal;

NOTING that, to date, the material has not been admitted into evidence by the Appeals Chamber;

CONSIDERING that the Appellants have not presented the necessary information relevant for the application of Rule 65(I) insofar as it incorporates the provision of Rule 65(C) which authorises the Chamber to impose conditions to ensure the convicted person’s presence and the protection of others;

CONSIDERING that in part because of this lack of specific information as to the place and proposed conditions under which the accused could be released, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that, notwithstanding its power under Rule 65(I) of the Rules to impose such conditions upon the provisional release as it determines appropriate, the Appellants, if released, would appear for appeal proceedings and would not pose a danger to any victim, witness or other person;

CONSIDERING FURTHER that the Appellants have failed to show that special circumstances, as required by Rule 65(I)(iii), exist to warrant their release pending appeal, and that their appeals are expected to be decided within the next several months;

CONSIDERING that Rule 82(B) of the Rules provides for joint and separate trials and provides that persons accused jointly may be tried separately in order to avoid a conflict of interests that might cause prejudice to an accused, or to protect the interests of justice;

CONSIDERING that Rule 82(B) is applicable mutatis mutandis to appellate proceedings by virtue of Rule 107 of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that no valid reasons are submitted to support the Request for Separation;

CONSIDERING THEREFORE that the Appellants have not demonstrated that a separation of proceedings is necessary in order to avoid a conflict of interest that might cause serious prejudice to the Appellants, or to protect the interests of justice;



Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

Patricia Wald
Presiding Judge

Done this 24th day of April 2001,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

[Seal of the Tribunal]


Home | Terms & Conditions | About

Copyright 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.