[1] Cf. In Re. André Ntagerura, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A28, Decision on Motion for Leave to Appeal the President’s Decision of 31 March 2008 and the Decision of Trial Chamber III Rendered on 15 May 2008, 11 September 2008 (“Ntagerura Appeal Decision”), para. 12 (“The Applicant seeks leave of the Appeals Chamber to appeal against the Decision of the President and the Decision of the Trial Chamber. While neither the Statute nor the Rules provide for such appeals, the Appeals Chamber has inherent jurisdiction over the enforcement of its orders and any decisions rendered as a consequence thereof.”); Miscellaneous-Kabuga Family-01-A, Decision (Appeal of the Family of Félicien Kabuga Against Decisions of the Prosecutor and President of the Tribunal), 22 November 2002, p. 3 (“CONSIDERING moreover that the action of the Prosecutor was taken pursuant to a Rule made by the Judges and that, by implication, the Judges, through the appropriate mechanism of a Trial Chamber, retain responsibility to review the working of such action […];”). The Appeals Chamber observes, however, that accused before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) have been expressly granted standing to seek revocation in the terms of the decisions ordering their referral. See, e.g., Jean Uwinkindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis, Decision on Uwinkindi’s Appeal Against the Referral of his Case to Rwanda and Related Motions, 16 December 2011 (“Uwinkindi Rule 11bis Decision”), paras. 79, 85. The Appeals Chamber observes that Rule 11bis(F) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence tracks the language of Rule 11bis(F) of the ICTY Rules quoted above. In addition, Rule 14(C) of the MICT Rules allows the President to assign, proprio motu or at the request of the Prosecution, a trial chamber to decide whether to revoke a request for referral.