P. 3: NOTING that in the Motion, the Appellant provides reasons in support of his argument that the Appeals Hearing should be scheduled for a later date than provided in the Scheduling Order including, inter alia, his intention to file a new motion under Rule 115 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) as well to invite the Bar Counsel of England and Wales Human Rights Committee to attend and observe the Appeals Hearing;[1]

CONSIDERING that under Rule 115(A) of the Rules, the parties may file motions for admission of additional evidence on appeal after the appeal hearing, provided that cogent reasons are shown for such a delay;

CONSIDERING that a party’s intention to invite a third-party observer to the appeals hearing and the availability of that third-party on certain dates are not factors that the Appeals Chamber is required to take into consideration when setting the date for an appeals hearing;

CONSIDERING that since the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 23 November 2006[2] upheld the President’s decision to refuse the withdrawal of the Appellant’s Co-Counsel, the arguments in the Motion in relation to the absence of the Co-Counsel[3] are moot;

CONSIDERING that in light of the amendments to the Rules, which entered into force on 10 November 2006, the Appellant’s arguments with respect to logistical problems in relation to the preparation of the Appeal Books on or before 18 December 2006[4] are moot, since the Rules no longer place such an obligation on the parties;[5]

FINDING therefore that the Appellant has failed to establish good cause for the Appeals Chamber delaying the Appeals Hearing as set in the Scheduling Order […]