17 is a matter that goes beyond the concept of “equality of arms” as properly understood, and requires examination on a case-by-case basis. It is submitted that on the facts, no such injustice existed in the instant case. 63 39. In the view of the Prosecution, the issue raised by the present ground of appeal is whether the degree of lack of cooperation and obstruction by the authorities in the Republika Srpska was such as to deny the Appellant a fair trial. 64 It submits that the Defence must prove that the result of such non-cooperation was to prevent the Defence from presenting its case at trial, and contends that the Defence has failed to meet this burden. It maintains that the Defence had a reasonable opportunity to defend the Appellant under the same procedural conditions and with the same procedural rights as were accorded to the Prosecution, and that it indeed put forward a vigorous defence by presenting the defences of alibi and mistaken identity. 65 In addition, it is noted that the Defence was helped by the broad disclosure obligation on the Prosecution under the Rules, which extends an obligation upon the Prosecution to disclose all exculpatory evidence of which it is aware. Furthermore, it is submitted that, whereas the Defence received some measure of cooperation from the authorities in the Republika Srpska, the Prosecution in fact received no such cooperation at all. 66 Finally, it is alleged that the Defence has not substantiated its claim that any lack of cooperation substantially disadvantaged the Defence as compared to the Prosecution. 67 40. The Prosecution further argues that the standard which the Defence advocates for establishing a violation of the principle of equality of arms or the right to a fair trial is set too low. It claims that the Defence does not prove a violation of this principle merely by showing that relevant evidence was not presented at trial. In its view, a higher standard is called for, according to which the burden is on the Defence to prove an “abuse of discretion” by the Trial Chamber. The Prosecution maintains that the Defence has not satisfied this burden, as it has not shown that the Trial Chamber acted inappropriately in proceeding with the trial. 68 63 Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Judgement, paras. 3.21-3.23; T. 88-89 (20 April 1999). T. 90-91 (20 April 1999). 65 T. 97 (20 April 1999). 66 T. 90, 98-99 (20 April 1999). 67 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para.10; Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Judgement, paras. 3.29, 6.9. 68 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 6. 64 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999