Case No. IT-95-14-R77.2-A

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before:
Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Andrésia Vaz
Judge Theodor Meron
Judge Wolfgang Schomburg

Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis

Decision:
7 April 2006

PROSECUTOR

v.

IVICA MARIJACIC
MARKICA REBIC

_____________________________________________

DECISION ON PAYMENT OF FINES

The Office of the Prosecutor:

Mr. David Akerson

Counsel for the Appellants

Mr. Marin Ivanovic for Ivica Marijacic
Mr. Kresimir Krsnik and Mr. Veljko Miljevic for Markica Rebic

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 ("International Tribunal" and "Appeals Chamber", respectively),

NOTING the Judgement rendered in this case on 10 March 2006 by Trial Chamber III ("Trial Judgement") in which the Trial Chamber found both accused Ivica Marijacic and Markica Rebic guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of fifteen thousand Euros on each of the accused, payable within thirty days of the Trial Judgement, i.e. on 10 April 2006;

NOTING the "Accused Markica Rebic Notice of Appeal” and the "Defendant Ivica Marijacic Notice of Appeal", both filed timely on 20 March 2006;

HAVING RECEIVED the "Motion of the Accused Markica Rebic for Suspension of the Order on Payment of Fines" filed on 5 April 2006 by counsel for Markica Rebic ("Defence" and "Appellant", respectively), in which the Defence requests the Appeals Chamber to grant a "suspension" of the Appellant’s obligation of payment of fines until a judgement has been rendered by the Appeals Chamber on his appeal;

NOTING that the Appellant submits the following grounds:

• that it is a universally recognized right to be presumed innocent until pronounced guilty by a final decision of a court,

• that the execution of a sentence before the finality of a judgement is practically unknown in criminal law and impossible in Croatian law, which according to the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence is to be taken into account when sentencing is concerned,

• that the Appellant does not have the necessary means to pay the fines and that the raising of funds would represent a great hardship for the Appellant and his family who depend on a modest retirement allowance;

HAVING BEEN informed by the Prosecution that it will not oppose a decision in line with the request of the Appellant;

NOTING that the urgency of the matter requires immediate action by the Appeals Chamber;

CONSIDERING that the appeal has not yet been heard;

CONSIDERING that in this concrete case before the Appeals Chamber it is not necessary, at this stage, to discuss the merits of the Appellant’s submissions;

FINDING that in the specific circumstances of this case a proprio motu decision of the Appeals Chamber is warranted;

CONSIDERING FURTHER the circumstances of the present case, any decision taken for the benefit of the Appellant on this matter should equally apply to his co-appellant Ivica Marijacic;

THEREFORE

DECIDES proprio motu that the payment of a fine, if any, shall not be due before the Appeals Chamber has rendered its decision;

DECIDES proprio motu that this decision shall equally apply to co-appellant Ivica Marijacic.

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

Dated this 7^th day of April 2006,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

______________________
Judge Fausto Pocar
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the International Tribunal]