عنوان مقاله [English]
Nuremberg and Tokyo courts were the first international criminal courts were established by allies when there were no international regulations regarding the accused rights. But after World War II, effective steps were taken in this regard. At global and regional levels, a large number of documents have fully noted this matter and also measures such as the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights have been predicted to be executed. The organs that played a significant role by interpreting the rights of the accused. Provisional Release is considered as one among these rights. After that in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, other courts were established at the international level. Now the question that arises in this context is whether these courts are required to follow the interpretations provided by the Human Rights Watch organization or not? Given that the rights of the accused do not differ in national courts and international criminal tribunals institutions, Human Rights Watch institutions throughout years have interpreted the provisions relating to the rights of the accused in their case law, Therefore, interpretations of the International Criminal courts judges can’t be inconsistent also with the judicial procedures. However, the rules and the interpretations of the courts of the latter led to violation of the rights of the accused in provisional release. In the present article, the interpretations offered by human rights monitoring bodies have been investigated with the views of international criminal courts in this area.