The Appeal of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH referred to the termination of custody for the following four persons:

- A. J. (1966), resident of Tuzla, citizen of BiH,

- S. P. (1973), resident of Živinice, citizen of BiH,

- R. K. (1974), resident of Kalesija Municipality, citizen of BiH, and

- S. M. (1974), resident of Tuzla Municipality, citizen of BiH.

Custody for all these suspects was requested for reasons as prescribed by Article 132(1)(b) and (C) of the BiH CPC, namely, due to the justified fear that the suspects, if at large, would influence witnesses, accessories or accomplices and that, if at large, the suspects might repeat the criminal offence.

On 04 July 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH moved the Court of BiH to extend custody for all these suspects, for additional two months. On 09 July 2013, the 24(7) Panel of the Court of BiH refused this Motion of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH on the extension of custody for all the suspects and imposed prohibiting measures on these suspects, namely, ban on leaving their place of residence, travel ban, prohibition from meeting with certain persons and obligation to report to authorized police stations.

On 09 July 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH lodged an Appeal to this Decision of the Court of BiH, challenging the conclusion of the First-Instance Panel of the Court of BiH and proving that prohibiting measures cannot achieve the purpose for which the custody was ordered against these suspects.

Having considered the contested Decision within the limits of the appellate pleading, on 16 July 2013, the Appellate Panel of the Court of BiH decided that the measure of custody against he aforementioned suspects ordered in this phase of the proceedings could not be achieved by prohibiting measures imposed by the 24(7) Panel as a substitute for the measure of custody, and that the extension of custody against these suspects was necessary. 

The Appellate Panel of the Court of BiH found that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH was correct in pointing out in a well-argumented and well-grounded manner that custody was the only meaningful measure.