the comparing between supervisory bodies of human rights interpretations and international criminal courts judgments on provisional release

nuremberg and tokyo courts as first international criminal courts were established by allies when there were not international regulations regarding the accused rights. but post war, effective steps were taken in this regard. at global and regional levels, a variety of documents have noted this matter detailed and also measures have been considered such as human rights committee of united nations organization and european court of human rights for executing them. these organs have played significant role in order to progress and develop it by interpreting the accused rights. provisional release is considered as 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 that 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 not also be inconsistent 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 this article, the interpretations offered by human rights monitoring bodies have been investigated with international criminal courts in this area.