Appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 24 September 2003.

Appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 24 September 2003.

In the Appeals Chamber four judgements were delivered.

On 15 July 2004, the Appeals Chamber rendered a decision on Mugiraneza's appeal against the decision of the Trial Chamber on exclusion of evidence by directing the Trial Chamber to reconsider Mugiraneza's request.3 The Appeals Chamber also dismissed the Prosecutor's counter appeal.

They have been and will continue to result in increased efficiency of appeals proceedings before the Appeals Chamber.

The Appeals Chamber rendered its judgement on 13 December 2004 in Arusha.

The appeals chamber of the National Safety Court upheld the sentence on 28 September.

The same period saw a significant increase in the workload of the Appeals Chamber.

The Appeals Chamber granted a motion under rule 115 for admission of additional evidence.

The Appeals Chamber has disposed of 30 appeals, from both this Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) since the last report.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed two motions for admission of additional evidence pursuant to rule 115.

As the Appeals Chamber's workload increases, consideration is still being given to increasing the capacity of the Appeals Chamber by having two Benches of five Judges available for the disposition of appeals.

Indeed, the increasing workload of the Appeals Chamber, which is common to both Tribunals, makes it difficult to estimate when all the appeals will be completed.

I am pleased to note that the Appeals Chamber, which is shared by the two Tribunals, has continued to operate at full capacity, because, as progress is made on the completion strategies, the Appeals Chamber will be of increasing importance.

The report mentions that, as the workload of the Trial Chamber decreases, the focus will shift to the Appeals Chamber, where an increase in work is anticipated.

Seven permanent judges are members of the Appeals Chamber, five of whom sit at any one time.

Appeals of trial judgements in a further six cases (involving 10 convicted persons), 28 interlocutory appeals and one application for review of a trial judgement were also received by the Appeals Chamber during this period.

The Appeals Chamber delivered 4 judgements and rendered 28 interlocutory decisions and 170 pre appeal orders and decisions.

On 19 May 2005, the Appeals Chamber also heard the parties' submissions on the merits of the appeal.

During the period under review, there was a significant increase in the workload of the Appeals Chamber, with appeals of judgement in 10 cases, as well as 28 interlocutory appeals and 1 motion for review under consideration.

The Appeals Chamber dismissed Niyitegeka's appeal in its entirety and affirmed the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his life which had been imposed by the Trial Chamber.

The Appeals Chamber delivered three judgements during the reporting period involving four accused, as well as numerous interlocutory decisions.

The Appeals Chamber is bound to be strained as trials are completed by both the ICTR and the ICTY.

The Appeals Chamber was seized and, on 28 September 2004, rendered an urgent decision (with reasons to follow) following a number of appeals concerning the decision of the remaining judges of the Trial Chamber to continue the trial with a substitute judge pursuant to rule 15 bis.

The Appeals Chamber delivered four judgements on appeals on the merits in respect of five persons between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005 (the Niyitegeka, Ntakirutimana, Semanza and Kajelijeli judgements).

By a majority decision, the Appeals Chamber held that the remaining judges had erred in the exercise of their discretion and, accordingly, granted the appeals and quashed the impugned decision.6

In the last six months, the three Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber have continued to operate at full capacity.

Furthermore, it would enable all pre trial and Appeals Chamber proceedings to continue without interrupting the conduct of any trial.

Following the Appeals Chamber's decision of 28 September 2004 and its reasons of 22 October 2004, the trial will start de novo before a different Trial Chamber Section in Trial Chamber III.

There will, at some stage, be a need to increase the number of judges at the Appeals Chamber if there are to be any reasonable prospects of completing the appeals by 2010.

The Appeals Chamber considered lead counsel's month long illness as good cause for extension of time pursuant to rule 116 (A).

The Appeals Chamber has also continued to operate at full capacity and has disposed of 30 appeals both from the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ( ICTR ), since the last report.

We note with satisfaction that the recommendations of the working group on speeding up appeals, which were implemented in September and November of 2005, have increased the efficiency of proceedings before the Appeals Chamber.

On 5 July 2004, the Appeals Chamber partially granted appeals by both appellants against the Trial Chamber's Decision on the Defence Urgent Motion to Declare Parts of the Evidence of Witnesses RV and QBZ Inadmissible .

Turning next to residuary issues, we note that the workload of the Appeals Chamber is set to increase dramatically in the near future.

Pre appeal procedures were completed during the reporting period, with a substantial number of pre appeal decisions being issued by the Appeals Chamber.

On 4 October 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Nyiramasuhuko's appeal concerning a decision to admit as evidence a diary allegedly belonging to her.

The Appeals Chamber noted that the reasons for which the Trial Chamber had certified the appeal were unclear, as the matters contained therein appeared to relate to the admissibility of the diary as evidence, which should be dealt with by the Trial Chamber in accordance with rule 89 (C).

It is difficult at this stage to indicate a completion strategy for the ICTR Appeals Chamber, as it is linked to the ICTY completion strategy.

The Appeals Chamber held that the impugned decision was without interlocutory appeal and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Appellant's Notice of Appeal.9

Moreover, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has strongly questioned the distinction between international and non international armed conflict

There will, at some stage, be a need to increase the number of judges at the Appeals Chamber if there are to be any reasonable prospects of completing the appeals by 2010. This will require an amendment of the Statute.

See separate opinion of Mohamed Shahabuddeen, in Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, case No. ICTR 96 3 A (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Appeals Chamber, 26 May 2003).

Following postponement of the appeal hearings at the request of the appellant's counsel, the Appeals Chamber heard the parties' submissions on 7 March 2005 in Arusha.

Pre appeal procedures were ongoing during the reporting period, with the Appeals Chamber granting a motion for the presentation of additional evidence pursuant to rule 115.