28 conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. The task of hearing, assessing and weighing the evidence presented at trial is left to the Judges sitting in a Trial Chamber. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber must give a margin of deference to a finding of fact reached by a Trial Chamber. It is only where the evidence relied on by the Trial Chamber could not reasonably have been accepted by any reasonable person that the Appeals Chamber can substitute its own finding for that of the Trial Chamber. It is important to note that two judges, both acting reasonably, can come to different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence. 65. The Appeals Chamber notes that it has been the practice of this Tribunal and of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”)96 to accept as evidence the testimony of a single witness on a material fact without need for corroboration. The Defence does not dispute that corroboration is not required by law. As noted above, it submitted that, as a matter of fact, the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} cannot be relied on in the absence of corroboration because he was introduced to the Prosecution by the same source, the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which introduced another witness, Mr. Opaci}, who was subsequently withdrawn as a witness by the Prosecution for being untruthful. The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Seferovi}’s association with the Bosnian government does not taint him. The circumstances of Mr. Seferovi} and Mr. Opaci} are different. Mr. Opaci} was made known to the Prosecution while he was still in the custody of the Bosnian authorities, whereas Mr. Seferovi}’s introduction was made through the Bosnian embassy in Brussels. Mr. Seferovi} was subjected to strenuous cross-examination by Defence counsel at trial. Defence counsel at trial did not recall him after learning of the withdrawal of Mr. Opaci} as a witness. Furthermore, Defence counsel at trial never asked that Mr. Seferovi}’s testimony be disregarded on the ground that he, like Mr. Opaci}, was also a tainted witness. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber did not err in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of Mr. Seferovi}. 66. The Defence alleges that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} because it was implausible. Here, it is claimed that the Trial Chamber did not 95 Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Judgement, para. 2.14. More fully, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. 96 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999