The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Appellant’s motion seeking a postponement of the appeal hearing due to the assignment of a new Co-Counsel, considering that:

Pp. 4-5: CONSIDERING that pursuant to Article 15 of the Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel (“Directive”), the Lead Counsel “shall deal with all stages of procedure” and “has primary responsibility for the Defence”, while the Co-Counsel may intervene “under the authority of Lead Counsel”;

CONSIDERING that the Appellant’s Lead Counsel was put on notice of the date of the Appeals Hearing on 16 November 2006, and […] he has not to date informed the Appeals Chamber of any justified unavailability for the Appeals Hearing;

RECALLING that the Letter of Assignment was offered to the current Co-Counsel by the DCDMS on the understanding that this would not result in any delay of the appellate proceedings;

CONSIDERING that the Lead Counsel, who, in the absence of any assistance from the former Co-Counsel, has had ample time to prepare for the Appeals Hearing in the present case,[1] and is in a position to brief the current Co-Counsel as to matters that may require his assistance during the Appeals Hearing;

CONSIDERING that, in light of the fact that the current Co-Counsel is a qualified lawyer, the Appellant’s argument that the verbal undertaking of the current Co-Counsel is of no significance to the latter’s ability to prepare for the Appeals Hearing is a mere assertion;[2]

CONSIDERING, therefore, that the Appellant has not shown that any postponement of the Appeals Hearing as scheduled by the Scheduling Order is required in the interests of justice.

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 […]

P. 4: RECALLING that the parties are to focus their oral arguments on the grounds of appeal raised in their briefs[1] and that the appeals hearing is not the occasion for presenting new arguments on the merits of the case;

RECALLING further that, during the hearing of an appeal, the parties are expected “to prepare themselves in such a way as not simply to recount what has been set out in their written submission, but to confine their oral arguments to elaborating on points relevant to this appeal that they wish to bring to the Appeals Chamber’s attention”;[2]

P. 5: CONSIDERING that parties may use and/or formally present skeleton arguments, slides or schedules to the Appeals Chamber in support of their oral arguments, provided that they contain no new arguments on the merits of the case and that the opposing party does not object; [1]

CONSIDERING, however, that the Appeals Chamber is not in a position to decide whether the use of the documents referred to by the Appellant shall be allowed, since they were not presented with the Motion; […]

16. The Appellant claims that, at the Appeal Hearing, the Prosecution raised new important factual challenges. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Appellant had the opportunity to object to the Prosecution’s allegedly new arguments during the Appeal Hearing but did not do so. […]Even if the Appellant was not in a position to exhaustively reply to those arguments at the Appeal Hearing, it was open to him to make a reasoned objection at the Appeal Hearing and, in case any allegedly new arguments had nevertheless been allowed by the Appeals Chamber, he should have sought leave, at the Appeal Hearing, to respond to them in writing at a later stage.[1]

17. The Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the Appellant has shown that filing a written reply to the Prosecution’s allegedly new arguments raised at the Appeal Hearing would be necessary or justified in the present case. This type of submission is not provided for by the Rules or Practice Directions of the Tribunal and could only be allowed in rather exceptional circumstances.

14. In addition, the Appellant requests an oral hearing for the purpose of advancing arguments relating to this ground of appeal. In view of the extensive submissions made and filed by the parties before both the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber and the substantial discussion in the First and Second Impugned Decisions of the issues now under appeal, the Appeals Chamber does not consider it necessary to hold an oral hearing on the Appeal.

Pages 2, 3

RECALLING that, pursuant to Rule 144(D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism […], the judgement on appeal shall be pronounced in public by the Appeals Chamber or a Judge thereof, on a date of which notice shall be given to the parties and counsel and at which they shall be entitled to be present;

[…]

OBSERVING that the Rules do not restrict the scheduling or conduct of appeal proceedings, including the pronouncement of judgement, on the basis of a stayed status conference;[14]

[…]

CONSIDERING that, during the Pronouncement of Judgement, a Judge of the Appeals Chamber will read a summary of the written judgement and publicly pronounce the verdict, with no action required from the parties or counsel;[18]