ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence also stipulate the presidency may also refer the case to a previously constituted Trial Chamber.
Start of trials would deny Uhuru and Ruto one of their claims for a right to be on the ballot in the election of Kenyaâs fourth president that they are not yet on trial.
The Appeals Chamber, which will rule on whether the ICC has jurisdiction to try the two Kenya cases, held there was not sufficient grounds to support the appellantsâ request for suspension of trials.
Presiding Judge of the Appeals Chamber Akua Kuenyehia, and fellow judges Sang Hyun Song, Erkki Kourula, Anita UÅ¡ack and Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko cited a past ruling on Jean-Pierre Bemba while rejecting the request by the four suspects for the trials to be suspended.
Further, the judges observed, the defendants did not provide any proper reasoning or submissions supporting their request.
The rejection of the application, the judges explained, would not lead to an irreversible situation that could not be corrected were the Appeals Chamber to eventually find in favour of their appeals.
Nor could it potentially defeat the purpose of the appeal, the judges added, noting that neither of the defendants had put forward any argument that it could do so.
Citing the Bemba case in which a similar application to suspend trial pending determination of his appeal was rejected, the Appeals Chamber found similar considerations apply in the two Kenyan cases.
The judges said continuation of trial does not foreclose reversal of the decision to commit the four to trial, citing the jurisdiction appeal that was pending even as Bembaâs trial got under way.
At the time the judges argued that if the Appeals Chamber were to eventually decide to grant Bembaâs appeal, any ongoing proceedings could be discontinued at that time.