In the United States, state courts have long been aware that well-reasoned decisions evaluating the state interests that must be taken into account in determining the scope of federally protected rights can help to elicit deference to state law from the U.S. Supreme Court. Municipal courts in Europe are also learning that well-reasoned decisions are more likely to elicit deference from regional international tribunals, be it in the context of the principle of subsidiarity in the European Community or in the context of the margin of appreciation under the European Convention on Human Rights. If nothing else, this case may help nurture a similar attitude in municipal courts generally, at least with respect to treaty obligations that may well be invoked before an international tribunal with compulsory jurisdiction. 54 Notwithstanding the delay in instituting proceedings in the present case, the need for urgency in prompt-release cases makes it likely that only the decision of a municipal trial court, and not that of an appellate court, will ordinarily be available at the time the Tribunal is seized. Although trial courts are accustomed to the idea that their decisions will be reviewed, they are also accustomed to the considerable freedom afforded them by appellate courts on certain matters. It is likely that appellate courts, once they articulate the relevant considerations and standards, only episodically manifest an interest in fact-sensitive “trial management” matters such as bond. The underlying point of this case is that the Tribunal is not a municipal appellate court applying municipal law.