1.  The Appeals Chamber was seized for the first time of an appeal from a decision modifying the terms of a provisional release. While the Prosecution was putting forward arguments going to the provisional release itself, the Appeals Chamber noted that the Prosecution never appealed against the original decision but was only appealing against the decision modifying the terms of release. It therefore held that, being seized of the decision modifying the conditions of the provisional release and not of the original decision granting such provisional release, “[r] egardless of the decision today, the Accused will remain on provisional release, at the very least according to the terms of the Original Provisional Release Decision.” (para. 25). See also paras 40, 42, 56.