167 or are of moment to the profession, or unless some useful result will follow decision.11 56. That approach is consistent with the Tadi} Decision on Jurisdiction, at paragraph 139. There, the defence had raised an argument before the Trial Chamber concerning an element of a crime against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal. The defence did not pursue the argument on appeal. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber observed, "Although before the Appeals Chamber the Appellant has forgone the argument ...., in view of the importance of the matter this Chamber deems it fitting to comment briefly on the scope of Article 5". 57. In my view, when the importance of the point in question isregarded, the parties were correct in agreeing that the Appeals Chamber could competently pass on it. D. Conclusion 58. These remarks concern some elements of the reasoning of the Appeals Chamber. On certain points of law, I hold different views, which I desire to preserve. But I agree with the disposition of the caseas set out in today’s judgement . Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative. ______________________ Mohamed Shahabuddeen Dated this fifteenth day of July 1999 At The Hague, The Netherlands.