The well-foundedness of the appeal is examined separately from the well-foundedness of the request to adopt an interim measure. Thus, the reasons the Constitutional Court is guided by in the course of granting or non-granting the request for interim measure are different from the reasons the Constitutional Court is guided by when it takes a decision on the appeal. The reasons and evidence that the appellant referred to in respect of the alleged violations of constitutional rights by the challenged judgment are not to be applied to the instant case by way of analogy when deciding on the well-foundedness of the request for interim measure. Therefore, it follows that the appellants have to offer valid arguments and they also have to prove that their request for adoption of interim measure is justified. As to the instant case, the appellants have failed to offer any evidence or actual allegations which would justify granting of their request for adoption of interim measure due to occurrence of irreparable consequences. In view of the aforesaid, the request of the appellant is ill-founded.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 901/05 of 26 April 2005, paragraphs 8 and 9;
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 966/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraphs 7 and 8;
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 1057/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraphs 11 and 12
A right to liberty of person, including other related rights, is protected under Article 5 of the European Convention and constitutes one of the most important rights of every person. However, the competent authorities are entitled, pursuant to positive regulations, to deprive person of that right during the course of the proceedings. Under those circumstances, the Constitutional Court may examine whether the deprivation of the said right was justified if the appellant, in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, proves that the deprivation was inconsistent with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention, in which case the appellant has to offer evidence proving his allegations. However, a person who unjustifiably refers to this right with the request to terminate the enforcement of the criminal sanction imposed in the course of lawful proceedings, cannot seek the termination of the enforcement of that particular criminal sanction. The appellant has failed to present any facts or reasons relating to the instant case or any evidence on the possibility of occurrence of irreparable consequences which are inconsistent with the legitimate aim that is sought to be achieved. Due to the lack of such statements that would be substantiated by adequate evidence, the Constitutional Court decided to dismiss the request for interim measure.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 1065/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraphs 7 and 10