16. The Appeals Chamber does not agree with the Appellant that the participation of the Amicus Prosecutor would have the “incongruous effect of allowing a proxy of the Trial Chamber to defend on appeal the case that it has prosecuted on its behalf”.[1]  This argument is based upon the faulty premise that the Amicus Prosecutor and the Trial Chamber were one and the same entity.  Having been appointed by the Registrar, upon order of the Trial Chamber, the Amicus Prosecutor proceeded to prosecute the case on behalf of the Chamber without becoming an “agent” or “proxy” thereof.  Moreover, the Appeals Chamber has already stated that the participation of the Amicus Prosecutor would assist it in its consideration of the appeal.[2]

18. The Appeals Chamber notes that it is not uncommon for a party to challenge on appeal the actions of an opposing party during trial, and that such a challenge does not preclude the Appeals Chamber from presenting questions to the opposing party on appeal in relation to the actions being challenged. The Appeals Chamber thus finds no merit in the Appellant’s contention that the involvement of the Amicus Prosecutor in the Appeal proceedings would preclude the Defence and/or the Appeals Chamber from hearing evidence potentially relevant to this case.  Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber reminds the Appellant that the Appeals Chamber determines an appellant’s grounds of appeal after the Appeals Chamber has had the benefit of reviewing the submissions of both parties and hearing their oral arguments.  The Appeals Chamber accordingly finds no basis in the Appellant’s argument that allowing the Amicus Prosecutor to participate in the appeal proceedings would create the appearance that the Appeals Chamber condones the alleged improper contacts challenged under Ground 3 of the Appeal.