|Decision on Referral - 03.07.2007||
KAREMERA et al.
9. The Appeals Chamber finds no legal basis for Mr. Nzirorera to appeal against the Impugned Decision. Rule 11bis (H) of the Rules expressly provides for the possibility to appeal a Trial Chamber’s decision determining whether to refer a case to a national jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s Statute and Rules do not provide for appellate review of a decision taken by the President pursuant to Rule 11bis (A) to designate a Trial Chamber for determining whether referral of a case would be appropriate. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber has already held, in a different context, that a decision taken by the Tribunal’s President within his exclusive discretion is not subject to appeal.
10. The Appeals Chamber is also unable to accept Mr. Nzirorera’s proposition that the Appeals Chamber may hear his appeal as part of its inherent jurisdiction. While it is correct that the Appeals Chamber has the statutory duty to ensure the fairness of proceedings on appeal and, to this effect, has jurisdiction to review decisions taken by the Tribunal’s President, Mr. Nzirorera’s case is presently not on appeal. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber’s consideration of the underlying issues of the fairness of Mr. Nzirorera’s proceedings is limited to an appeal against a conviction or where the issue properly arises in an interlocutory appeal as of right under the Tribunal’s Rules or as certified by a Trial Chamber.
11. Mr. Nzirorera’s argument that the Appeals Chamber should decide his appeal on the basis that it concerns an issue “of general significance to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence” is likewise not persuasive. […]
 Cf. The Prosecutor v. Vincent Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR-95-IC-AR, Decision on Appeal of a Decision of the President on Early Release, 24 August 2006, para. 3; The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba, Case No. ICTR-01-66-AR, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of a Bureau Decision, 22 May 2006 (for the proposition that decisions taken by the Bureau may not be appealed) (“Seromba Appeal Decision”).
 Cf. Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to Set Aside President’s Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate His Marriage, 6 December 2005.
 See Seromba Appeal Decision, para. 4 (citing cases).
|ICTR Rule Rule 11 bis ICTY Rule Rule 11 bis|