1280.            The Appeals Chamber is concerned by the practice of trial chambers in the exercise of their discretion, as in this case,[1] to postpone consideration of Defence objections to the admission of testimonial evidence on the ground of lack of notice to the phase of their final deliberations on the case. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, leaving the issue of whether facts could be relied upon as a potential basis for liability unresolved until the end of the trial, as the Trial Chamber did, creates uncertainty which can be a source of potential prejudice to the Defence.[2] While the Appeals Chamber considers that it would have been preferable for the Trial Chamber to rule on the Defence objections in a timely fashion to ensure clarity on the facts underpinning the charges on the basis of which it considered it could hold the accused responsible, it notes that Ntahobali, again, fails to substantiate his allegation of prejudice.