11 3. The Appeal against Sentencing Judgement 26. By the Appeal against Sentencing Judgement, the Defence would appear to seek the following relief: (i) That the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber be reduced. (ii) That the calculation of the minimum sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber be altered to run from the commencement of the Appellant’s detention. (iii) That the Appellant be given credit for time spent in detention in Germany prior to the request for deferral made by the International Tribunal in this case. D. Sentencing Procedure 27. The Appeal against Sentencing Judgement was the subject of oral argument by the parties. However, in the view of the Appeals Chamber, that appeal may be conveniently considered in connection with the appeal by the Prosecution relating to certain counts of the Indictment in respect of which the accused was acquitted. Both the Prosecution and the Appellant agreed that, if the Appellant were found guilty on those counts, there should be a separate sentencing procedure relating thereto. As will appear below, the Appellant is found guilty on those counts, with the consequence that there will have to be a separate sentencing procedure in relation to those counts. The Appeals Chamber considers that its decision on the Appeal against Sentencing Judgement should correspondingly be deferred to the stage of a separate sentencing procedure. 28. An earlier procedure provided for a sentencing hearing to take place subsequent to conviction; that procedure was replaced, in July 1998, by Sub-rule 87(C) of the Rules, which provides for sentence to be imposed when conviction is ordered. The earlier procedure was applied when the Appellant was originally sentenced and was in force when the Appeals were brought. In respect of the change, Sub-rule 6(D) provides as follows: 50 Ibid. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999