In his Motion, Appellant Ntabakuze requests the severance of his case from the cases of his two co-Appellants and the retention of the briefing schedule for the Prosecution as foreseen by Rules 111 and 112 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”). Previously, the Prosecution had notified the Appeals Chamber of its intention to file a consolidated response to all three appeal briefs.

22.     The Appeals Chamber notes that it is within its discretion to decide a motion with or without an oral hearing.[1] Ntabakuze’s sole argument for an oral hearing seems to be based on the premise that oral arguments would expedite the Appeals Chamber’s decision.[2] However, he fails to specify why and how an oral hearing could expedite the decision. The Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that an oral hearing is necessary in this case, nor that it would expedite its decision on the matter since the information before it is sufficient to enable it to reach an informed decision. […]