11. Due to the apparent inconsistencies of the Rule 115 Motion with the formal requirements set out in Paragraph 7 of the Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement (“Practice Direction”),[1] the Pre-Appeal Judge ordered the Appellant to “re-file, no later than 30 January 2006, appendices to the Rule 115 Motion which should be copies of the evidence that he is applying to present before the Appeals Chamber in strict accordance with the precise list of such evidence already contained in his Rule 115 Motion”.[2]

13. The Appeals Chamber accepts the documents annexed to the Corrigendum to Rule 115 Motion only inasmuch as they correspond to the pieces of evidence mentioned in the Rule 115 Motion itself but omitted from its annexes. Indeed, the Corrigendum to Rule 115 Motion cannot be used to widen the scope of the Rule 115 Motion.

18. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a party seeking the admission of additional evidence on appeal must provide the Appeals Chamber with the evidence sought to be admitted.[3] For the sake of clarity and in light of the Appeals Chamber’s findings above,[4] the Appeals Chamber notes that not all of the materials referred to in the Rule 115 Motion and/or contained in the Annexes thereto can in fact be considered as meeting the formal requirements for submission of additional evidence to be considered for admission on appeal.

19. In particular, pursuant to Article 7 of the Practice Direction,[5] the following documents should fall out of the consideration by the Appeals Chamber since they were either not annexed to the Rule 115 Motion and not later submitted with the Corrigendum or were annexed to the Rule 115 Motion but not listed therein and the Rule 115 Motion thus contains no arguments as to their admissibility: […] While he admits that these two documents “fall within the generic description” contained in the Rule 115 Motion,[6] he persists that they “should be considered as evidence which may undermine the convictions”[7] but does not make any argument as to their admissibility in his Rule 115 Motion.[8] The Appellant re-filed these documents in his Corrigendum to the Rule 115 Motion despite a clear indication of the discrepancy between the contents of his Rule 115 Motion and Annexes thereto made to him by the Pre-Appeal Judge.[9] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber does not consider Annex 1 and Annex 2 as documents tendered as additional evidence on appeal.

21. Finally, the Appellant tenders a number of documents (all referred to in the Rule 115 Motion but not attached as Annexes),[10] which were in fact already admitted into evidence at trial and therefore do not constitute “additional evidence” to be admitted in this case. The Appeal Chamber notes that it is consequently not necessary to examine them in considering the Rule 115 Motion.[11]