On May 19, 2022, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court denied the appeal of Mr. Mahamat Said Abdel Kani against a Trial Chamber decision to maintain his detention pending his trial for alleged crimes against humanity (imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty; torture; persecution; enforced disappearance and other inhumane acts) and war crimes (torture and cruel treatment). Said Abdel Kani alleged that the Trial Chamber based its decision to maintain detention on "theoretical and abstract risks" regarding the likelihood that he could, and would be helped to, abscond before trial. By reference to prior decisions of the Court, the Appeals Chamber noted that the Rome Statute only requires that detention "appear[] necessary" and that a determination of whether detention is appropriate may be based on the "possibility, and not the inevitability, that one of the events listed in article 58(1)(b) of the Statute will occur." This, according to the Court, "necessarily involves an element of prediction." In the Appeals Chamber's view, the evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber to come to its decision was legitimate and the Trial Chamber did not err in its decision. The Court also rejected Said Abdel Kani's assertion that such a standard equates to a presumption of detention, since in most cases it will be easy to justify detention based on a risk that the defendant "might" abscond or be helped to abscond. The Court stated that in this case, there was a "significant risk" that the defendant "might be able to abscond." The Court also rejected the defendant's arguments that: (1) the Trial Chamber erred in law by relying on precedent holding that the risk of absconding increases with the confirmation of charges; (2) the risk of interference with witnesses cannot be generalized and must be specific to the accused; (3) the Trial Chamber based its finding regarding witness interference on material that was not disclosed to the defense; and (5) the defense is forced to choose between the right to liberty or the right to information because of the Trial Court's having partially based its decision regarding detention on the fact that disclosure of certain evidence, particularly around witnesses, may lead to witness tampering. In relation to the last argument, the Appeals Chamber noted that a Trial Chamber must in each individual case balance the rights of a person to be informed against the possible need to withhold information. In this case, the Trial Chamber exercised that balance correctly.