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.