Case No. IT-05-88-PT
IN TRIAL CHAMBER II
Before:
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti
Judge Kevin Parker
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Decision of:
9 November 2005
THE PROSECUTOR
v.
VUJADIN POPOVIC
LJUBISA BEARA
DRAGO NIKOLIC
LJUBOMIR BOROVCANIN
ZDRAVKO TOLIMIR
RADIVOJE MILETIC
MILAN GVERO
VINKO PANDUREVIC
MILORAD TRBIC
______________________________________________
DECISION ON DRAGO NIKOLIC’S REQUEST FOR
PROVISIONAL RELEASE
______________________________________________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Peter McCloskey
Counsel for the Accused:
Zoran Zivanovic for Vujadin Popovic
John Ostojic for Ljubiša Beara
Jelena Nikolic and Stéphane Bourgon for Drago Nikolic
Alan Newman and Miodrag Stojanovic for Ljubomir Borovcanin
Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic for Radivoje Miletic
Dragan Krgovic for Milan Gvero
Djordje Sarapa for Vinko Pandurevic
Colleen Rohan for Milorad Trbic
I. INTRODUCTION
- Trial Chamber II 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 (“Tribunal”) is seised of the
“Motion seeking the provisional release of Drago Nikolic
until the beginning of the trial phase of the proceedings” filed
by Counsel for Drago Nikolic (respectively
“Defence” and “Accused”) on 7 October 2005 (“Motion”)
in which the Defence requests the provisional release
of the Accused pursuant to Rules 65(B) of the Rules
of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”).1 On
21 October 2005, the Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution”)
filed its “Prosecution Response
to Motion seeking provisional release of Accused Drago
Nikolic” (“Response”).
- On 26 October 2005, the Defence filed a “Defence
Motion Seeking Leave to Reply to the Prosecution
Response to the Defence Motion Seeking Provisional
Release of Drago Nikolic” and an appended proposed
Reply (“Reply”) on the grounds that
[t]he Prosecution Response contains erroneous legal
assertions which render a Reply necessary with a
view to facilitating the adjudication of the Defence
Motion on a sound legal basis. More importantly,
the Prosecution Motion includes factual information
- in the form inter alia of a declaration by
the Deputy Chief of Investigations within the OTP-which
was not known to the Defence at the time the Defence
Motion was filed and to which a Reply is necessary.2
Rule 126bis provides that “[a] reply to the
response, if any, shall be filed within seven days
of the filing of the response, with the leave of the
relevant Chamber”. The Trial Chamber hereby grants
the Defence leave to reply and will thus consider
the Reply in deciding upon the Motion.
- On 6 September 2002, an “Order Confirming the
Indictment Pursuant to Article 19” along with an “Order
concerning Non-Disclosure” and an “Order Issuing
an Arrest Warrant” were issued ex parte and
under seal by Judge Schomburg.3
An additional warrant for arrest and an order for surrender
directed to the authorities of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia were issued on 11 October 2002, both
under seal.4 The
confidentiality of the warrant for arrest and of the
order for surrender was lifted on 21 October 2002.5
- The Accused was detained and transferred to the
seat of the Tribunal on 17 March 2005. His initial
appearance was held on 20 March 2005 and he reserved
his right to enter a plea within thirty days pursuant
to Rule 62(iii) of the Rules. A further appearance
was thus held on 20 April 2005, during the course
of which the Accused pleaded not guilty to all charges
against him.
- On 21 September 2005, Trial Chamber III rendered
its “Decision on the Prosecution’s
Joinder Motion” filed on 10 June 2005 in which it granted
the motion and joined the case against the Accused
to five other cases against eight other accused.6
The joined case, Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popovic,
Ljubisa Beara, Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir Borovcanin,
Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic, Milan Gvero, Vinko
Pandurevic and Milorad Trbic, Case No. IT-05-88-PT,
was assigned to Trial Chamber II on 26 September 2005.7
II. SUBMISSIONS
- The Defence first submits that the Accused has
sufficiently demonstrated that he will appear for
trial as he surrendered voluntarily and unconditionally
and provided reasons for not surrendering at the
earliest period as well as information related to
his whereabouts during that period.8
Moreover, the Defence calls on the Trial Chamber to
give full weight to the guarantees given by the Government
of the Republic of Serbia and the Council of Ministers
of Serbia and Montenegro (“Governmental Guarantees”)
as well as the personal guarantees provided by the
Accused.9 The
Defence further notes the degree of co-operation of
the Accused with the Prosecution.10
In addition, the Defence submits that the Accused has
never posed a danger to any victim, witness or person
related to these proceedings.11
Finally, the Defence generally submits that “no specific
and objective reason which outweighs the need to ensure
respect for the right to liberty of the Accused” exists, that the presence of the Accused is not necessary
during the pre-trial proceedings and that the general
principle of proportionality in international law militates
in favour of the Accused being granted provisional
release.12
- In its Response, the Prosecution opposes the Motion
and submits that the requirements necessary for
provisional release to be granted have not been met.
In particular, the Prosecution submits that the
Accused has not established that he will appear
for trial, since neither his personal guarantees
nor the Governmental Guarantees can be given substantial
weight.13
More particularly, the Prosecution alleges that the
Accused has not given an adequate explanation for
not surrendering at the earliest opportunity.14
The Prosecution further submits that neither the Governmental
Guarantees nor the personal guarantees are sufficient
to establish that the Accused will appear for trial
if provisionally released in so far that the Governments
of Serbia and Montenegro and of the Republic of Serbia
have been unwilling or unable to arrest General Zdravko
Tolimir, a co-accused in the present case, and General
Ratko Mladic, that the Accused is residing purposely
outside the jurisdiction of international forces led
by NATO, that the Accused has been charged with exceptionally
grave crimes and that the completion strategy of the
Tribunal would be a disincentive for the Accused to
appear for trial.15
- In its Reply, the Defence reiterates that the
Accused did surrender voluntarily and has provided
reasons as to why his surrender did not occur at
the earliest opportunity.16 Secondly,
the Defence underscores the personal circumstances
of the Accused which should be taken into account
by the Trial Chamber.17 Thirdly,
the Defence argues that the guarantees provided
by the authorities of the Republic of Serbia and
Serbia and Montenegro should be considered sufficient
as well as reliable and given the adequate weight
by the Trial Chamber.18
Finally, the Defence submits that the place of residence
of the Accused in Serbia and Montenegro, the severity
of the charges against him and the completion strategy
should not be factors taken into account by the Trial
Chamber in reaching its decision on the Motion.19
III. DISCUSSION
A. APPLICABLE LAW
- Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the Tribunal
(“Statute”) bestow upon the
Trial Chamber the responsibility to ensure that a trial
is fair and expeditious and that proceedings are
conducted in accordance with the rules, with full
respect for the rights of the accused and due regard
for the protection of victims and witnesses.20
- Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules organise the law
applicable to detention on remand, making detention
on remand the principle and provisional release the
exception, the latter to be granted at the discretion
of the trial chamber when three conditions, laid
down below, are fulfilled.21
- Rule 65 of the Rules sets out the basis upon which
a Trial Chamber may order provisional release of
the Accused and reads, in relevant parts
(A) Once detained, an accused may not be released
except upon an order of a Chamber.
(B) Release may be ordered
by a Trial Chamber only after giving the host
country and the State to which the accused
seeks to be released the opportunity to be
heard and only if it is satisfied that the
accused will appear for trial and, if released, will not pose a danger to any victim, witness
or other person (…)
- The Trial Chamber will thus examine, in turn,
whether it is satisfied that, if provisionally released,
the Accused will appear for trial and not pose a
danger to any victim, witness or other person.
B. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF
THE CASE
1. Whether the Accused will appear for trial
- The Defence submits that several factors indicate
that, if provisionally released, the Accused would
appear for trial. Firstly, the Defence alleges that
the surrender of the Accused on 17 March 2005 was
both voluntary and unconditional. Secondly, the
Defence underlines the adequate weight to be given
to the Governmental Guarantees. Thirdly, the Defence
submits that the Accused has personally undertaken
to make himself immediately available if required
to do so and to abide by any condition the Trial
Chamber may impose. Finally, the Defence submits
that the Trial Chamber should not draw any adverse
conclusion from the fact that the Accused has not
yet started discussing co-operation with the Prosecution,
even though he has expressed his intention to do
so.
- In its Response, the Prosecution submits that
the Accused has not established in a satisfactory
manner that he will appear for trial since neither
his personal undertaking nor the Governmental Guarantees
can be given adequate weight, because i) the Accused
has not provided a satisfactory explanation for not
surrendering at the earliest opportunity; ii) the
authorities of Serbia and Montenegro and of the
Republic of Serbia have not sufficiently co-operated
with the Tribunal in light of the fact that Generals
Zdravko Tolimir and Ratko Mladic still remain at
large ; iii) the Accused currently resides in Serbia
and Montenegro, outside the jurisdiction of international
forces led by NATO, despite having lived in Bratunac
municipality, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(“BiH”); iv) the charges which the Accused
is facing are of an extremely serious nature; and v)
the completion strategy of the Tribunal provides
a disincentive for the Accused to surrender.
- In its Reply, the Defence reiterates the voluntary
nature of the Accused’s
surrender. The Defence further submits that the personal
undertaking of the Accused should be read in accordance
with his personal circumstances. Additionally, the
Defence submits that it is difficult to see how
the guarantees provided by the Republic of Serbia
and Serbia and Montenegro could not be given the
necessary weight so as to grant provisional release
to the Accused. Finally, the Defence submits that
the completion strategy should not be taken into
account when assessing and attributing weight to
State guarantees.
- The Trial Chamber will thus consider all those
relevant factors which a reasonable Trial Chamber
would have been expected to take into account before
coming to its decision as to whether the Accused
will appear for trial if provisionally released.
The Appeals Chamber has provided guidance and indicated
the following non-exhaustive list of factors:
- whether the accused is charged with serious criminal
offences;
- whether the accused is likely to face a long prison
term, if convicted;
- the circumstances of the accused’s surrender;
- the degree of co-operation by the authorities of
the State to which the accused seeks to be released;
- the guarantees offered by these authorities, and
any personal guarantees offered by the accused;
- the likelihood that, in case of breach of the conditions
of provisional release, the relevant authorities
will re-arrest the accused if he declines to surrender;
and
- the accused’s degree of co-operation with the Prosecution.22
(a) Gravity of the crimes charged and likelihood
of the Accused facing a long prison term, if convicted
- The Trial Chamber notes the gravity of the crimes
with which the Accused is charged in the Consolidated
Amended Indictment (“Indictment”). The Indictment
charges the Accused with individual criminal responsibility
pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal
(“Statute”) for genocide pursuant to Article 4 of
the Statute, conspiracy to commit genocide pursuant
to Article 4(3)(b) of the Statute, extermination
as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(b)
of the Statute, murder both as a crime against humanity
pursuant to Article 5(a) of the Statute and as a
violation of the laws or customs of war pursuant
to Article 3 of the Statute, persecution as a crime
against humanity pursuant to Article 5(h) of the
Statute including murder, cruel and inhumane treatment,
terrorising of the civilian population, destruction
of personal property and forcible transfer, and both
inhumane acts (forcible transfer) and deportation
as a crime against humanity respectively pursuant
to Articles 5(d) and 5(i) of the Statute. The charges
relate to alleged crimes committed in the Srebrenica
and Zepa areas between 11 July and 11 November 1995,
during which time the Accused was allegedly the
Chief of Security of the 1st Zvornik Light Infantry
Brigade.23
- The crimes charged in the Indictment are of a
particularly grave nature and the Accused, if convicted,
would face a lengthy prison sentence. While this
might be a strong incentive for the Accused not
to re-appear for trial,24
the Trial Chamber cannot consider this factor alone
and must assess it in light of the other circumstances
surrounding the Motion.
(b) Surrender of the Accused
- The Trial Chamber considers that the voluntary
surrender of an accused is an important factor in
determining whether an accused will appear for trial
if provisionally released. In the Motion and the
statement of the Accused appended at Confidential
Annex A, the Accused alleges that he surrendered
voluntarily and unconditionally on 17 March 2005.
In its Response, the Prosecution casts doubt as to
the voluntary nature of the Accused’s surrender.25
While no evidence has been adduced which clearly establishes
that the Accused did not surrender voluntarily on
17 March 2005, the Trial Chamber wishes to consider
the timeliness of the eventual surrender in order
to attribute it adequate weight. The first indictment
against the Accused was made public on 21 October 2002,
date at which the Accused acknowledges that he came
to know of it. It is also undisputed that the Accused
remained at large until 17 March 2005, when he was
transferred to the Tribunal. Thus, for approximately
2 years and 5 months, the Accused was a fugitive from
international justice.
- The Trial Chamber considers that the reasons provided
in the Motion, the statement of the Accused appended
in Confidential Annex A and the Reply are entirely
unconvincing in so far that they do not explain
in a satisfactory manner why the Accused took no
step to appear before the trial during the course
of these two years and five months. In these circumstances,
the Trial Chamber will attribute very little weight
to the surrender of the Accused and it reiterates
its reasoning as set out in the
Pandurevic Provisional Release Decision, in
which it held that
[t]he Trial Chamber is more concerned that the
demonstrated prior ability of the Accused to successfully
avoid compliance with his legal obligations for
substantial periods of time, until the moment of
his choosing, makes his strong incentive to flee
all the more potent.26
(c) Governmental Guarantees and co-operation of
the authorities of Serbia-Montenegro and of the Republic
of Serbia with the Tribunal
- The Trial Chamber notes that Governmental Guarantees,
similar to those presented in support of the Motion,
have been assessed differently in a number of recent
decisions, in light of the specific circumstances
of each case.27
The Trial Chamber agrees that the general trend towards
increased co-operation by the authorities of the Republic
of Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro in the recent
past should be acknowledged.28 As
in the Pandurevic case, the Trial Chamber is
however concerned with the Prosecution’s
allegations that the Government of Serbia and Montenegro
is aware of the whereabouts of General Zdravko Tolimir,
co-accused in the present case, and is not doing its
utmost to facilitate his transfer to the Tribunal.
Similarly, the Trial Chamber agrees that Article 36
of the Law on Cooperation of Serbia and Montenegro
with the Tribunal provides for the obligation of the
Council of Ministers of Serbia and Montenegro and
the governments of the republics of which the accused
is a citizen to give a guarantee to the Tribunal for
persons who have voluntarily surrendered for their
provisional release. Further, the Trial Chamber notes
that the Governmental Guarantees are dated 17 and
24 March 2005, immediately after the transfer of the
Accused to the Tribunal, and that they were not, therefore,
provided in light of the specific circumstances of
the Motion. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber in the Pandurevic
case held that
The Trial Chamber acted within
its discretion when it took note of this trend
yet did not conclude that authorities in Serbia
and Montenegro have cooperated with the Tribunal
to the “utmost”.29
- The Trial Chamber acknowledges that, as 2nd Lieutenant
and Chief of Security of the 1st Light Infantry
Zvornik Brigade, the rank and position of the Accused
may have been lower than the majority of his co-accused.
However, the Trial Chamber does not consider this
sufficient to give substantial weight to the Governmental
Guarantees. Indeed
The Trial Chamber, moreover, did not have to
rely on the guarantees just because they had
been offered by Governments with power to arrest
the Appellant. A Trial Chamber must evaluate
government guarantees in light of the circumstances
surrounding each individual applicant, and in
some circumstances, it may be reasonable to place
little weight on a government guarantee.30
- For the aforementioned reasons, the Trial Chamber
finds that the Governmental Guarantees are not sufficient
to establish that, if provisionally released, the
Accused will appear for trial.
(d) Personal guarantees
- The Accused provides a statement appended to the
Motion at Confidential Annex A and a personal undertaking
at Annex C that he will abide by any condition for
provisional release imposed by the Trial Chamber,
including immediate surrender if requested to do
so. The Trial Chamber reiterates its reasoning pertaining
to the weight to be given to the surrender of the
Accused31
and finds that the reasons provided by the Accused
in his statement appended at confidential Annex A
as to why he did not surrender in the two years and
five months after he came to know of the indictment
against him, are largely unsubstantiated and do not
provide the Trial Chamber with a satisfactory basis
to give substantial weight to the Accused’s personal
undertaking that he will appear for trial.
- Moreover, the Trial Chamber is concerned with
the allegation made by the Prosecution that the
Accused has elected a village in Serbia and Montenegro,
a few kilometres away from the Republika Srpska
in BiH, as his place of residence while he is originally
from the municipality of Bratunac, BiH, and that
his wife and daughter work, or have worked, in the
municipality of Zvornik (BiH). The Accused thus keeps
strong links with BiH while choosing to reside in
the neighbouring State of Serbia and Montenegro,
outside the jurisdiction of the international forces
competent in BiH to arrest persons indicted by the
Tribunal.32
- Considering all the above, the Trial Chamber is
not satisfied that, if provisionally released, the
Accused would appear for trial. While it is sufficient
that the first requirement set out in Rule 65(B)
of the Rules is not fulfilled for provisional release
to be denied, for sake of completeness, the Trial
Chamber will examine the second requirement.
2. Whether the Accused will pose a danger to
any victim, witness or any person
- The Defence submits that the Accused, if provisionally
released, would not pose a danger to any victim,
witness or other person. The Prosecution does not
challenge this part of the Motion. Not having received
any information from the Prosecution that would
substantiate an opposite conclusion, the Trial Chamber
does not see any reason to doubt that the Accused
has never posed a danger to any victim, witness
or any other person who may appear before the Tribunal,
or that he would not do so if he were to be provisionally
released.
3. Proportionality of the pre-trial detention
- The Defence submits that Rule 65 of the Rules
should be examined in light of the principle of
proportionality as interpreted by the European Convention
or the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December
1966. In its Response, the Prosecution submits that
the length of pre-trial detention in this particular
case is neither unreasonable nor offensive.
- The length of pre-trial detention must be assessed
in light of the specific circumstances of this case.
The Accused was transferred to the Tribunal on 17
March 2005. On 10 June 2005, the Prosecution filed
its Motion for Joinder, upon which Trial Chamber
III decided on 21 September 2005. In the past seven
months of detention on remand, the investigation
into the crimes has been ongoing and the usual preparations
for trial conducted in a reasonable manner. The
Trial Chamber thus considers that the length of
pre-trial detention of the Accused at present is
proportional to the circumstances of the case brought
against him in the Indictment.
IV. DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons
Pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the
Tribunal and Rule 65 and
126bis of the Rules
HEREBY DENIES the Motion.
Done in English and French, the English version being
authoritative.
Dated this ninth day of November 2005
At The Hague
The Netherlands
_____________________
Judge Carmel Agius
Presiding
[Seal of the Tribunal]
1 - On 11
October 2005, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as host
country, expressed that it did not object to the provisional
release of the Accused provided that the place of provisional
release was outside Dutch territory.
2 - Prosecutor
v. Vujadin Popovic, Ljubisa Beara, Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir
Borovcanin, Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic, Milan
Gvero, Vinko Pandurevic and Milorad Trbic, Case No.
IT-05-88-PT, Defence Motion Seeking Leave to Reply
to the Prosecution Response to the Defence Motion Seeking
Provisional Release of Drago Nikolic, 26 October 2005.
3 - Prosecutor
v. Drago Nikolic, Case No. IT-02-63-I, Ex-parte and
Under Seal Order Confirming Indictment Pursuant to
Article 19, Order concerning non-disclosure and Order
issuing Arrest Warrant, 6 September 2002
4 - Prosecutor
v. Drago Nikolic, Case No. IT-02-63-I, Under Seal Order
on Issuance of Additional Warrant for Arrest, 7 August
2002, Warrant of Arrest and Order for Surrender, 11
October 2002.
5 - Prosecutor
v. Drago Nikolic, Case No. IT-02-63-I, Order to Vacate
in Part the Order for non-Disclosure Issued on 6 September
2002, 21 October 2002.
6 - Prosecutor
v. Vujadin Popovic, Case No. IT-02-57-PT, Prosecutor
v. Ljubisa Beara, Case No. IT-02-58-PT, Prosecutor
v. Drago Nikolic, Case No. IT-02-63-PT, Prosecutor
v. Ljubomir Borovcanin, Case No. IT-02-64-PT, Prosecutor
v. Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero,
Case No. IT-04-80-PT, Prosecutor v. Vinko Pandurevic
and Milorad Trbic, Case No. IT-05-86-PT, Decision on
Motion for Joinder, 21 September 2005.
7 - Prosecution
v. Vujadin Popovic, Ljubisa Beara, Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir
Borovcanin, Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic, Milan
Gvero, Vinko Pandurevic and Milorad Trbic, Case No.
IT-05-88-PT, Order of assigning a case to a Trial Chamber,
26 September 2005.
8 - Motion,
para. 27; Confidential Annex A.
9 - Ibid.,
at paras 28-31.
10 - Ibid.,
at para. 32.
11 - Ibid.,
at para. 33.
12 - Ibid.,
at para. 34.
13 - Response,
para. 7.
14 - Ibid.,
at paras 8-10.
15 - Ibid.,
at paras 11-21.
16 - Reply,
paras 20, 23.
17 - Ibid.,
at paras 18-23.
18 - Ibid.,
at paras 24-33.
19 - Ibid.,
at paras 34-43.
20 - Article
20.1 of the Statute provides that “[t]he Trial Chamber
shall ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and
that proceedings are conducted in accordance with the
rules of procedure and evidence, with full respect
for the rights of the accused and due regard for the
protection of victims and witnesses. Article 21 of
the Statute provides, inter alia that: “1. All persons
shall be equal before the International Tribunal […]
3. The accused shall be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to the provisions of the present Statute.”
21 - Prosecutor
v. Vinko Pandurevic and Milorad Trbic, Case No.
IT-05-86-PT, Decision on Vinko Pandurevic’s Application for Provisional
Release, 18 July 2005, (“Pandurevic Provisional Release
Decision”), para. 9: “It should be noted that by the
terms of Rule 65(B) it is a discretion to order provisional
release, not a discretion to refuse to order provisional
release.”
22 - Prosecutor
v. Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR65,
Decision on Provisional Release, 30 October 2002, para.
6.
23 - Indictment,
para. 16.
24 - Prosecutor
v. Vinko Pandurevic and Milrad Trbic, Case No.
IT-05-86-AR65.1, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal from
Trial Chamber Decision Denying Vinko Pandurevic’s Application
for Provisional Release, 3 October 2005, (“Pandurevic
Appeal Decision on Provisional Release”), para. 5; Prosecutor
v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Decision
on Defence Request for Provisional Release of Stanislav
Galic, 23 March 2005, para. 6; Prosecutor v. Ivan
Cermak and Mladen Markac, Case No. IT-03-73-AR65.1,
Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s
Decision Denying Provisional Release, 2 December 2004,
para. 25.
25 - Response,
para. 9.
26 - Pandurevic
Provisional Release Decision, para. 18.
27 - Pandurevic
Provisional Release Decision; Pandurevic Appeal Decision
on Provisional Release; Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popovic,
Case No. IT-02-57-PT, Decision on Motion for Provisional
Release, 22 July 2005; Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popovic,
Case No. IT-02-57-AR65.1, Decision on Interlocutory
Appeal from Trial Chamber Decision Denying Vujadin
Popovic’s Application for Provisional Release, 28 October
2005; Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic
and Milan Gvero, Case No. IT-04-80-PT, Decision Concerning
Motion for Provisional Release of Milan Gvero, 19 July
2005 and Decision Concerning Motion for Provisional
Release of Radivoje Miletic, 19 July 2005; Prosecutor
v. Zdravko Tolimir, Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero,
Case No. IT-04-80-AR65.2, Decisions on Interlocutory
Appeals against Trial Chamber’s Decisions Granting
Provisional Release, 19 October 2005.
28 - Prosecutor
v. Vladimir Lazarevic, Case No. IT-03-70-PT, Decision
on Defence Request for Provisional Release, 14 April
2005, p. 3; Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainovic, Case No.
IT-99-37-PT, Decision on Third Defence Request for
Provisional Release, 14 April 2005, para. 27; Pandurevic
Provisional Release Decision, 18 July 2005, para. 19.
29 - Pandurevic
Appeal Decision on Provisional Release, para. 13.
30 - Prosecutor
v. Vujadin Popovic, Case No. IT-02-57-AR65.1, Decision
on Interlocutory Appeal from Trial Chamber Decision
Denying Vujadin Popovic’s Application for Provisional
Release, 28 October 2005.
31 - See para. 20 infra.
32 - Between
12 December 1996 and 2 December 2004, the multinational
NATO-led stabilisation force (SFOR) was competent in
providing assistance to the authorities of BiH for
the arrest of persons indicted by the Tribunal. United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1088, of 12 December
1996, gave jurisdiction to the SFOR to provide for
a safe and secure environment for BiH, pursuant to
the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
between BiH, Croatia and the FRY, initiated in Dayton
on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December
1995. As of 2 December 2004, a European force for stabilisation
in BiH (EUFOR) took over SFOR mandate. However, the
NATO-led SFOR maintains its role in the arrest of persons
indicted by the Tribunal.