BEFORE THE DUTY JUDGE
|
Before: |
Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca, Duty Judge |
||
|
Registrar: |
Mr. Hans Holthuis |
||
|
Order: |
4 August 2004 |
||
|
PROSECUTOR v. JADRANKO PRLIC BRUNO STOJIC SLOBODAN PRALJAK MILIVOJ PETKOVIC VALENTIN CORIC BERISLAV PUSIC
ORDER ON PROSECUTOR’S MOTION TO STAY ORDERS ON PROVISIONAL RELEASE |
|||
|
The Office of the Prosecutor: |
|
|
Mr. Kenneth Scott |
|
|
Counsel for the Accused Jadranko Prlic: |
Counsel for the Accused Slobodan Praljak: |
|
Mr. Camil Salahovic |
Mr. Bozidar Kovacic |
|
Mr. Zelimar Par |
Ms. Nika Pinter |
|
Counsel for the Accused Bruno Stojic: |
Counsel for the Accused Milivoj Petkovic |
|
Mr. Zeljko Olujic |
Ms. Vesna Alaburic |
|
Counsel for the Accused Berislav Pusic: |
Counsel for the Accused Valentin Coric |
|
Mr. Marinko Skobic |
Mr. Tomislav Jonjic |
I, Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca, Duty Judge 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 ("International Tribunal"),
BEING SEISED of the "Prosecutor’s Motion to Stay Orders on Provisional Release Concerning the Accused Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic Pursuant to Rule 65 and 127" filed on 3 August 2004 ("Application"), requesting the Duty Judge to stay the decisions of Trial Chamber I, issued on 2 August 2004, which granted applications for provisional release filed by each of the six accused pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Decision" and "Rules," respectively),
NOTING that the Defence of each of the six accused filed their response to the Application on 3 and 4 August 2004, respectively,
NOTING that Rule 28 (D) provides that where a case has already been assigned to a Trial Chamber, the Duty Judge may act upon an application made within normal Registry hours, only if the Trial Chamber is unavailable, and if the Duty Judge is satisfied as to its urgency or that it is otherwise appropriate to do so in the absence of the Trial Chamber,
NOTING that Rule 65 (E) of the Rules provides that the Prosecutor shall make an application for a stay of a decision by the Trial Chamber to release an accused "at the time of filing his or her response to the initial application for provisional release by the accused," and that it appears from the Application that the Prosecutor has not complied with Rule 65 (E) of the Rules i.e. the Prosecutor did not apply for a stay of the decisions at the time of filing its responses to the initial provisional release applications for each of the six accused 1,
NOTING that the Prosecutor argues that Rule 65 (E) of the Rules "does not foreclose a separate application for stay being made following a decision on an application for provisional release," and that to the extent that Rule 65 (E) of the Rules might be viewed as providing the "sole manner in which the Prosecutor may seek a stay," the Prosecutor requests that its motion for stay "be recognised as validly done, as if the Prosecutor had included such an application when it filed its original oppositions to release" pursuant to Rule 127 (A)(ii) of the Rules2,
CONSIDERING that, in the circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Duty Judge, acting as a single Judge, to decide this issue and it is more appropriate for the Trial Chamber to do so,
PURSUANT TO Article Rules 28 and 54 of the Rules,
HEREBY REMIT the APPLICATION to Trial Chamber I for its determination, and ORDER that the six accused are to remain in the custody of the International Tribunal pending resolution of the Application by Trial Chamber I.
Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.
__________________
Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca
Duty Judge
Dated this fourth day of August 2004
At The Hague
The Netherlands
[Seal of the Tribunal]
Home | Terms & Conditions | About
Copyright © 1999- WorldCourts. All rights reserved.