Paragraph 16 of the Interlocutory Appeal affirms that confessions require consideration under Rule 63 as well as Rule 92 and is not an appropriate basis of distinction in holding a voir dire:

16. The Defence for Mr. Ntahobali further argues that the Trial Chamber erred by distinguishing the Previous Statements (as interviews by the Prosecution investigators) from a confession, in finding that a voir dire procedure is inappropriate in this case.  The Appeals Chamber notes that a confession does indeed require additional consideration under the Rules as confessions are specially addressed under Rule 92 of the Rules. However, this provision requires the confession to be conducted in strict compliance with Rule 63 of the Rules. Therefore the distinction between confessions and interviews of the accused is not an appropriate basis for deciding when to conduct a voir dire because both forms of statements require the same consideration under Rule 63. However, contrary to submissions of the Defence for Mr. Ntahobali, the Trial Chamber did not merely rely upon such a distinction in deciding not to conduct a voir dire procedure as the Trial Chamber additionally found that the “circumstances of the case” did not require further investigation.