27. The Appeals Chamber considers the Trial Chamber’s approach in the Impugned Decision to be inherently inconsistent. Dismissing an argument as a matter of law means that, even if the factual allegations submitted by a party were proven, they would not justify the relief sought by that party. Hence, if the Trial Chamber intended to address the Appellant’s argument as a matter of law only, it should have accepted the Appellant’s factual allegations as if they were true (i.e. pro veritate). Instead, the Trial Chamber asserted that it would accept the evidence presented by the Appellant pro veritate,[1] dismissing some of the Appellant’s argument on the basis that the available evidence was insufficient to establish the factual allegations submitted by the Appellant. This approach is not consistent with a dismissal as a matter of law, and denies the Appellant the opportunity to set out all of his evidence.