The Appellant was arguing that the Trial Chamber erred in law in taking into account the length of his pre-trial detention to determine whether, under the terms of Rule 65(B) of the Rules, he would appear for trial if released. The Appeals Chamber held the following:

23. Undisputedly, a Trial Chamber may determine whether the particular circumstances of a case[1] warrant that provisional release be granted to an accused based on the actual or likely excessive length of his pre-trial detention. However, such determination is an additional discretionary consideration which has no bearing upon the assessment as to whether an accused will appear for trial if released.[2] Therefore, the Trial Chamber erred by taking this factor into account in determining that the Appellant had not satisfied the first requirement of Rule 65(B). For the foregoing reasons this ground of appeals is allowed.