11. […] The granting of an oral hearing is a matter for the discretion of a Chamber and an oral hearing may legitimately be regarded as unnecessary when, as in the present case, the information before the Appeals Chamber is sufficient to enable the Appeals Chamber to reach an informed decision.[1] […]

Transcript of 19 May 2005, pp. 49-50:

Over the past two days, we have heard from two Defence witnesses under Rule 115, provisions for hearing additional evidence on appeal.  We have also heard from two Prosecution witnesses who were presented in the rebuttal to the Appellant's additional evidence, and we are now presented with a new motion by the Appellant to call yet two more witnesses who, the Appellant alleges, will challenge the testimony of one of the Prosecution's rebuttal witnesses. […]

At today's Rule 115 hearing a Prosecution witness alleged that two Tribunal employees approached her at the United Nations safe house where she was staying while testifying before this Tribunal in another case.  She further alleged that these two Tribunal employees offered to pay her money and give her substantial assistance in other ways if she would come back to this Court and recant her trial testimony in the Kamuhanda case.  The Appellant would now like to call these two Tribunal employees, presumably, for the purpose of getting them to deny having offered any bribes to the Prosecution witness in question.

For two reasons, the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded that this is appropriate.  First, this is a Rule 115 hearing, which is intended to be a sharply delimited proceeding for entering discrete, specific evidence into the record; it is not intended to be a trial within a trial that opens the door to the exploration of every issue that might be raised during the hearing.  Presenting these two witnesses would be a rejoinder to a rebuttal to the Defence's original Rule 115 evidence, and there is no guarantee that it would end there.

Second, the Appeals Chamber is not convinced that the witness's testimony will make a material difference to the Defence's case.  The Appeals Chamber simply does not believe that such evidence on the record would be at all helpful in assessing the credibility of the Prosecution's rebuttal witnesses.  The Appeals Chamber does not foreclose the possibility that if sufficiently compelling or unexpected evidence surfaces during a Rule 115 hearing, it might be required in the interests of justice to expand the hearing beyond its original scope.  But under the circumstances of this case the Appellant has failed to convince the Chamber that such truly exceptional circumstances exist.  The Appellant's motion is denied.

The Appeals Chamber decided to refer the allegations of contempt and false testimony, which arose during the course of the Rule 115 proceedings, to the Prosecution for general investigation. See pp. 50-51.

9. […] Pursuant to Rule 115(C) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”), the Appeals Chamber may decide a motion for leave to present additional evidence on appeal “with or without an oral hearing”. Generally, the granting of an oral hearing is a matter for the discretion of a Chamber and may legitimately be regarded as unnecessary when the information before the Chamber is sufficient to enable it to reach an informed decision.[1] In the instant case, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant has not put forward any convincing reasons justifying that written submissions are inadequate to put forward his arguments in relation to the Rule 115 Motion and thus, does not consider that the efficient conduct of the present proceeding requires an oral hearing prior to rendering its decision on the Rule 115 Motion.[2]