|
Press Release · Communiqué de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)
CC/PIO/100-E
The Hague, 22 July 1996
CELEBICI CASE UPDATE: DELALIC'S PROVISIONAL RELEASE SOUGHT
A motion by counsel for Zejnil DELALIC requesting his provisional release under Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence will be heard before Trial Chamber II on Tuesday, 23 July 1996 at 9.30 a.m. The accused will be present during this public hearing.
The motion, which was filed by Defence Counsel Edina Residovic on 29 May 1996, requests that Trial Chamber II issues an order for DELALIC's release and states the circumstances which must be met to ensure his presence at the trial.
The motion argues that "in all contemporary legal systems, a detention order is an extraordinary measure intended to ensure the presence of the accused and is always limited to a minimum period of time".
Further, Rule 40 (Provisional Measures) must "be interpreted in a restricted manner and must be applied in a highly restricted manner". According to the motion, "[t]he arrest of Zejnil DELALIC, pursuant to Rule 40, is contrary to the spirit of the Statute (. . . ) and the rights of suspects". In addition, "the risk of the escape of the suspect, his intimidation of
a victim or witness, or his destruction of evidence must be specifically set out, not just in general abstract terms".
In his response filed on 28 June 1996, the Prosecutor requests that the motion for provisional release be denied.
The Prosecutor argues that the Defence motion fails to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying provisional release nor does it guarantee that DELALIC will appear for trial or will not pose a threat to victims and witnesses.
The Prosecutor claims that under Rule 65 there is a presumption that accused persons will be detained, unless exceptional circumstances are proven 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". Defence counsel has not been able to demonstrate the required exceptional
circumstances.
|
