13 II. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE DEFENCE: INEQUALITY OF ARMS LEADING TO DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL A. Submissions of the Parties 1. The Defence Case 29. In the first ground of the Appeal against Judgement, the Defence alleges that the Appellant’s right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the circumstances in which the trial was conducted. Specifically, it alleges that the lack of cooperation and the obstruction by certain external entities -- the Government of the Republika Srpska and the civic authorities in Prijedor -- prevented it from properly presenting its case at trial. 51 The Defence contends that, whilst most Defence witnesses were Serbs still residing in the Republika Srpska, the majority of the witnesses appearing for the Prosecution were Muslims residing in countries in Western Europe and North America whose governments cooperated fully. It avers that the lack of cooperation displayed by the authorities in the Republika Srpska had a disproportionate impact on the Defence. It is accordingly submitted that there was no “equality of arms” between the Prosecution and the Defence at trial, and that the effect of this lack of cooperation was serious enough to frustrate the Appellant’s right to a fair trial. 52 The Defence therefore, requests the Appeals Chamber to set aside the Trial Chamber’s findings of guilt and to order a re-trial. 53 30. Citing cases decided by both the European Commission of Human Rights (“Eur. Commission H. R.”) and the European Court of Human Rights (“Eur. Court H. R.”) under the provision in the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) corresponding to Article 20(1) of the Statute, the Defence submits that the guarantee of a fair trial under the Statute incorporates the principle of equality of arms. 54 The Defence 51 Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement, paras. 1.1-1.3; T. pp. 35-40 (19 April 1999). Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement, para 1.11. 53 Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal against Judgement, p. 6. 54 Dombo Beheer B.V. v. The Netherlands, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 27 October 1993, Series A, no. 274; Neumeister v. Austria, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 27 June 1968, Series A, no. 8; Delcourt v. Belgium, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 17 January 1970, Series A, no. 11; Borgers v. Belgium, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 30 October 1991, Series A, no. 214; Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 10 February 1983, Series A, no. 58; Bendenoun v. France, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 24 February 1994, Series A, no. 284; Kaufman v. Belgium, Application No. 10938/84, 50 Decisions and 52 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999