The Appeals Chamber decided five appeals from judgement, as well as 23 interlocutory appeals.

The Appeals Chamber denied leave to appeal.

Appeals by the prosecution and defence are currently pending before the Appeals Chamber.

In the Appeals Chamber four judgements were delivered.

It is currently pending before the Appeals Chamber.

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.

The competent Chamber for revision would be the chamber which had reached the initial decision, whereas appeals would be heard by an Appeals Chamber consisting of seven judges established by the Bureau.

The ICTR Appeals Chamber also has a very heavy workload.

The Appeals Chamber accordingly affirmed the sentence of seven years' imprisonment imposed upon Kvočka by the Trial Chamber.

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 pronounces upon it after following a procedure similar, mutatis mutandis, to that before the Trial Chamber.

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

The Appeals Chamber has delivered four judgements in respect of five persons.

The Appeals Chamber noted Kvočka's withdrawal of his first ground of appeal.

The Appeals Chamber, like the Trial Chamber, recognized that defendants have a presumptive right to represent themselves before the Tribunal.

On 13 October, the Appeals Chamber granted the motion for leave to appeal.

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 affirmed in part and reversed in part the Trial Chamber's decision.

The Appeals Chamber, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, imposed a new sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.

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

The imposition of counsel was appealed and ultimately reversed in part by the Appeals Chamber.

On 4 February, the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgement regarding Dragan Nikolić's appeal on sentencing.

On 18 July, the Appeals Chamber unanimously established in the case Prosecutor v. Milan Babić that the Trial Chamber erred as to mitigating factors.

Other preliminary motions which did not concern matters of jurisdiction or which the Trial Chamber found not necessary to refer to the Appeals Chamber were dealt with by the Trial Chamber.

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

On 2 December, the Appeals Chamber granted the appeals and ordered that Čermak and Markač be provisionally released subject to the terms and conditions specified.

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.

This was followed, on 2 December 2002, by the swearing in of eight Judges comprising the three member Trial Chamber and the five member Appeals Chamber.

As to article 56, the number of judges comprising the appeals chamber should be twice that of the judges hearing the case in the lower chamber.

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.

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

On 25 February, the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgement in the case of Miroslav Kvočka et al.

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.

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 dismissed Žigić's remaining grounds of appeal in all other respects and affirmed the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment imposed upon Žigić by the Trial Chamber.

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.

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 allowed, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, the appellant's ground of appeal that the Trial Chamber erred in taking into account the time he would actually serve in detention.

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.