7.       Two of the appellants (Landžo and Mucić) initially argued that the Appeals Chamber had no power to remit limited issues such as the adjustment of a sentence to a Trial Chamber for its determination.[1]  The third of the appellants (Delić) accepted that the Appeals Chamber had power to remit a limited issue to a Trial Chamber, but he submitted that it should not have done so in this case where none of the judges of the original Trial Chamber could be a member of the new Trial Chamber.[2]

9.       The argument originally put as to the power of the Appeals Chamber to remit limited issues to a new Trial Chamber would in any event have been rejected.  The Appeals Chamber considered its power to do so at the time when it exercised that power in its judgment in the earlier appeal.  An appeal from the Trial Chamber’s determination of those limited issues does not give to the parties the opportunity to appeal against the decision of the Appeals Chamber to remit those limited issues to the Trial Chamber.

10.     Nor does the Appeals Chamber consider it appropriate to reconsider its power to remit limited issues to a new Trial Chamber.  Its power to remit limited issues is clear. [….]

16.     The powers of the Appeals Chamber in relation to an appeal are not limited to those expressly stated in Article 25 of the Tribunal’s Statute or in Rule 117(C).  As part of the Tribunal, it also has an inherent power, deriving from its judicial function, to control its proceedings in such a way as to ensure that justice is done.[3]  The circumstances previously outlined prevented the Appeals Chamber from exercising its power to resolve those issues itself.  In those circumstances, it had the inherent power to remit those issues to be determined by another Chamber to ensure that justice was done to the parties in relation to the issues raised by the Appeals Chamber Judgment.[4]  The challenge to the power of the Appeals Chamber to remit limited issues is rejected.

See also para. 3.