Press Release . Communiqué de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)

CC/PIO/262-E
The Hague, 17 November 1997

KUPRESKIC AND OTHERS CASE:

FOUR ACCUSED FILE A PRELIMINARY MOTION
FOR PROVISIONAL RELEASE

On 14 November 1997, Defence Counsel for four accused in the Kupreskic case filed a joint Motion for Temporary Set at Liberty (sic) in accordance with Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal.

Mr Ranko Radovic (from Zagreb) filed the motion for his clients Mr Mirjan KUPRESKIC and Mr Zoran KUPRESKIC, Mr Luka Susak (from Zagreb) filed for Mr Drago JOSIPOVIC and Mr Petar Puliselic (also from Zagreb) filed for Mr Dragan PAPIC.

In the joint motion, Counsel for the accused requested their provisional release on the grounds that they are "family people and this motion would mitigate their position, both for them and their families, and the accusation clearly shows that they are subordinate persons who are according to the charges, simple executors, and not organisers or givers of orders."

Moreover, the accused submitted that they are willing to "give statements" assuring their intention to appear before the Tribunal for trial, should their motion be granted. They also gave their assurances that whilst provisionally released from the Tribunal’s custody, they would not "endanger" victims and witnesses.

Finally, the Defence also requested the Trial Chamber to "set bail", in accordance with Rule 65. Rule 65 reads as follows:

1. Once detained, an accused may not be released except upon an order of a Trial Chamber.
   
   
2. Release may be ordered by a Trial Chamber only in exceptional circumstances, after hearing the host country 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.
   
   
3. The Trial Chamber may impose such conditions upon the release of the accused as it may determine appropriate, including the execution of a bail bond and the observance of such conditions as are necessary to ensure his presence for trial and the protection of others.
   
   
4. Any decision rendered under this Rule shall be subject to appeal in cases where leave is granted by a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber, upon serious cause being shown, within fifteen days following the impugned decision.
   
   
5. If necessary, the Trial Chamber may issue a warrant of arrest to secure the presence of an accused who has been released or is for any other reason at liberty. The provisions of Section 2 of Part Five shall apply mutatis mutandis.

*****

The above motion can be obtained from the Press and Information Office upon request.