8. The Appeals Chamber considers that the Appellant’s request for clarification is in fact a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of 23 January 2006 and finds that none of the arguments raised by the Appellant establish cause for reconsideration.[1] […]

footnote 19: The Appeals Chamber has an inherent discretionary power to reconsider its own previous interlocutory decisions if the existence of a clear error of reasoning has been demonstrated or if it is necessary in order to prevent an injustice. […] No such error or injustice has been shown here.