13. […] the Appeals Chamber considers that the Appellant’s persistent and pervasive use of alternative formulations for alleged errors of law and alleged errors of fact throughout the Notice of Appeal leads to imprecision and confusion and does not give the Amicus Prosecutor sufficient notification of the scope of the appeal.  If the Appellant is of the view that an issue is one of law, then this should be stated.  If it is one of fact, then it should be stated as such.  Only where there is a genuine issue of mixed law and fact, or where there is a real uncertainty, should an alternative formulation be used. 

14. Finally, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “[t]he only formal requirement under the Rules is that the notice of appeal contains a list of the grounds of appeal; it does not need to detail the arguments that the parties intend to use in support of the grounds of appeal, the place for detailed arguments being in the Appellant’s brief.”[1]  The Appeals Chamber notes that the Notice of Appeal is so long and complex that it is difficult for the Appeals Chamber to separate out the grounds and sub-grounds of appeal therein from what might be argumentation.  Moreover, the Notice of Appeal contains sections that are clearly argumentation […]. The Appellant is reminded that a notice of appeal requires her to clearly specify the alleged error in question and then identify the challenged finding or ruling in the judgement or decision.  Detailed argumentation is to be included in the appeal brief.  In light of the foregoing, the Appellant is instructed to re-file the Notice of Appeal in conformity with the above requirements.

11. Due to the apparent inconsistencies of the Rule 115 Motion with the formal requirements set out in Paragraph 7 of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement (“Practice Direction”),[1] the Pre-Appeal Judge ordered the Appellant to “re-file, no later than 30 January 2006, appendices to the Rule 115 Motion which should be copies of the evidence that he is applying to present before the Appeals Chamber in strict accordance with the precise list of such evidence already contained in his Rule 115 Motion”.[2]

13. The Appeals Chamber accepts the documents annexed to the Corrigendum to Rule 115 Motion only inasmuch as they correspond to the pieces of evidence mentioned in the Rule 115 Motion itself but omitted from its annexes. Indeed, the Corrigendum to Rule 115 Motion cannot be used to widen the scope of the Rule 115 Motion.

18. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a party seeking the admission of additional evidence on appeal must provide the Appeals Chamber with the evidence sought to be admitted.[3] For the sake of clarity and in light of the Appeals Chamber’s findings above,[4] the Appeals Chamber notes that not all of the materials referred to in the Rule 115 Motion and/or contained in the Annexes thereto can in fact be considered as meeting the formal requirements for submission of additional evidence to be considered for admission on appeal.

19. In particular, pursuant to Article 7 of the Practice Direction,[5] the following documents should fall out of the consideration by the Appeals Chamber since they were either not annexed to the Rule 115 Motion and not later submitted with the Corrigendum or were annexed to the Rule 115 Motion but not listed therein and the Rule 115 Motion thus contains no arguments as to their admissibility: […] While he admits that these two documents “fall within the generic description” contained in the Rule 115 Motion,[6] he persists that they “should be considered as evidence which may undermine the convictions”[7] but does not make any argument as to their admissibility in his Rule 115 Motion.[8] The Appellant re-filed these documents in his Corrigendum to the Rule 115 Motion despite a clear indication of the discrepancy between the contents of his Rule 115 Motion and Annexes thereto made to him by the Pre-Appeal Judge.[9] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber does not consider Annex 1 and Annex 2 as documents tendered as additional evidence on appeal.

21. Finally, the Appellant tenders a number of documents (all referred to in the Rule 115 Motion but not attached as Annexes),[10] which were in fact already admitted into evidence at trial and therefore do not constitute “additional evidence” to be admitted in this case. The Appeal Chamber notes that it is consequently not necessary to examine them in considering the Rule 115 Motion.[11]

96. As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Chamber notes that the alleged error in failing to keep a proper record of the site visit was not properly pleaded in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, which only refers to the alleged error in failing to take judicial notice of Operation Turquoise.[1] The Notice of Appeal thus fails to indicate the substance of the alleged errors and the relief sought, as required by Rule 108 of the Rules.[2] However, because the Prosecution did not object to this failure, the Appeals Chamber, exercising its discretion,[3] will consider whether the Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to include the video recording and any observations from the site visit in the official record of this case.

17. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber recalls that pursuant to the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement,[1] a notice of appeal should clearly specify with respect to each ground of appeal the challenged findings in the trial judgement, providing reference to the page and paragraph number.[2] Similarly, in an appellant’s brief, one is required to present arguments in support of each ground of appeal announced in the notice of appeal, including precise references to any relevant exhibit, transcript page, decision, or paragraph number in the judgement.[3] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that it is settled jurisprudence of this Tribunal that a party alleging an error of law must, in addition to identifying the alleged error and presenting arguments in support of its claim, explain how the error invalidates the decision.[4] Finally, if the Appeals Chamber agrees with such allegation and finds that the Trial Chamber applied a wrong legal standard, “it is open to the Appeals Chamber to articulate the correct legal standard and to review the relevant findings of the Trial Chamber accordingly”, applying the correct legal standard to the evidence contained in the trial record and determining whether it is itself convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to the affected factual finding. Therefore, the party alleging an error of law also has the burden to plead with precision how correcting such an error would affect the relevant conclusions underlying the findings of guilt.