1 In this context, it may be recalled that the procedure of prompt release was first put forward by the delegation of the United States, a common law country.

2 See Samuels A., “Bail Principles”, New Law Journal, 8 September 1966, quoted by Mr Justice Hibbert, Judges’ Seminar, Jamaica, March 2001 at www.sc.gov.jm/seminars. To give some typical examples of legislative provisions laying down matters to be taken into account by courts when considering release on bond or bail pending further legal proceedings in another court, the following may be noted: The Bail Act 2000 of Jamaica, section 4(2), provides that the court shall take into account inter alia “the nature and seriousness of the offence” and “the strength of the evidence of (the accused's) having committed the offence…” The Bail Act 1997 of Ireland, section 2(2) provides that the court shall take into account inter alia “the nature and seriousness of the offence charged’ and ‘the nature and strength of the evidence in support of the charge…” The United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 207, section 3142 (g) provides that the judicial officer shall take into account inter alia of “the nature and circumstances of the offense” and “the weight of the evidence against the person…” The Bail Act 1976 of England and Wales, Schedule I, provides that the court must have regard inter alia to the nature and seriousness of the offence and the strength of the evidence.

1 See ITLOS/PV.04/04, p. 14.

2 See article 112, paragraph 1, of the Rules.

3 See article 11, paragraph 2, of the Resolution.

4 See “Camouco” (Panama v. France), Prompt Release, Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2000, pp. 10, 28. See also Chandrasekhara Rao, P., “ITLOS: The First Six Years”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 183, 230–231.Google Scholar

5 See articles 111 and 112 of the Rules.

6 Article 112, paragraph 3, of the Rules.

7 Article 111, paragraph 4, of the Rules. Emphasis supplied.

8 Article 112, paragraph 4, of the Rules.

9 This was the first sitting in the cases heard by the Tribunal so far at which neither party was present.

10 See article 69, paragraph 1, of the Rules.

11 Emphasis supplied.

12 See letter dated 2 December 2004 from the Respondent to the Registrar of the Tribunal and to Applicant's statement in ITLOS/ PV.04/04, p. 14.

13 See article 71, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules of the Tribunal.

14 See also Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1996, Vol. III, p. 1092.

15 See article 292, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

16 See, for example, “Camouco” (Panama v. France), Prompt Release, Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2000, p. 31, para. 67.

* Judge Ndiaye's opinion has not yet been translated, but will be made available on the ITLOS web site.