In footnote 7, the Appeal Chamber held that

[…] In paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Notice of Appeal, Muvunyi alleges that his sentence was not in accordance with established practice and further requests the Appeals Chamber to reduce his sentence in light of any findings which are set aside as not supported by facts or law. Muvunyi does not develop this argument in his Appeal Brief. Instead, he addresses this point in his Respondent’s brief. There, Muvunyi submits that his crime is less egregious than several cases in which the Tribunal has imposed a sentence at or below 15 years of imprisonment and that a sentence of time served adequately serves the ends of justice. See Muvunyi Response Brief, paras. 13-40. Generally, arguments made in support of the Notice of Appeal should be developed in the Appeal Brief. That said, this does not prevent the Appeals Chamber from considering arguments of substantial importance to the appeal developed elsewhere if their exclusion would lead to a miscarriage of justice. See, e.g., Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to Pursue the Oral Request for the Appeals Chamber to Disregard Certain Arguments Made by Counsel for Appellant Barayagwiza at the Appeals Hearing on 17 January 2007, 5 March 2007, para. 15. In this case, however, Muvunyi’s submissions do not demonstrate any error in his sentence for the same reasons given in relation to the Prosecution’s challenge to the Trial Chamber’s comparative sentencing approach. See infra para. 72.

7. The Appeals Chamber notes the Applicant’s failure to comply with the formal requirements for filings before the International Tribunal and to follow the instructions provided by the Registry and reminds the Applicant of the importance of respecting these requirements. The Appeals Chamber is further compelled to observe that the three letters of submission from the Applicant fall far below the average standard for motions to the International Tribunal. Finally, the Appeals Chamber notes the poor language of the Application and reminds the Applicant that it may lodge submissions in any of the official languages of the International Tribunal.

8. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice and specifically in order to avoid prejudice arising to the Applicant from the poor diligence of Counsel, the Appeals Chamber decided to examine the merits of the Application.

13. Footnotes, of course, count toward the overall word limit, pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Length of Briefs.[1] I note that many spaces between numbers and punctuation marks were omitted from the footnotes of the Appeal Brief. The Appeal Brief indicates a word count of 39,866 words, such that if all the necessary spaces were included, the Appeal Brief would exceed the word limit set out in the Appeal Decision of 16 April 2013. The Appeals Chamber has previously held that such conduct is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the relevant Practice Directions.[2]

[…]

15. Turning to the Prosecution's assertion that Mr. Nizeyimana improperly included argumentation in the Annexes, the Appeals Chamber has previously held that the proper place for arguments in support of a particular ground of appeal, as well as any supporting authority, is the appeal brief.[3] An appellant therefore cannot simply refer in his appeal brief to other documents and expect those grounds of appeal to be preserved.[4]

16. Pursuant to paragraph C(4) of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, appendices do not count towards the word limit provided they do not contain legal or factual arguments, but only non-argumentative material.[5] Furthermore, an annex that provides description for some references cited does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the annex has argumentative content.[6] The interests of justice may even allow for a very limited amount of argumentative material in an annex, for which the parties have some discretion, as long as it is not abused and which will be determined on a case-by-case basis.[7] In this regard, even if an annex provides a clear overview of a party's positions, this does not necessarily prove that the annex is argumentative.[8]     

[…]

19. […] [A]n appellant has discretion as to how to develop arguments and how to allot the allowed space between arguments.