26 III. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE DEFENCE: ERROR OF FACT LEADING TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE A. Submissions of the Parties 1. The Defence 57. The Trial Chamber made the factual finding that the Appellant was guilty of the murder of two Muslim policemen, Edin Besi} and a man identified at trial by the name of Osman, based on the testimony of only one witness, Nihad Seferovi}. The Defence contends that the Trial Chamber erred in deciding that it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the two murders because the Chamber relied on the uncorroborated evidence of Mr. Seferovi}. The Defence maintains that Mr. Seferovi} is an unreliable witness because he was introduced to the Prosecution by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a source which the Defence alleges the Trial Chamber found to be tainted for having planted another Prosecution witness, Dragan Opaci}. The latter was found to be untruthful at trial and, consequently, withdrawn by the Prosecution. 58. The Defence argues that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} because it is implausible. Mr. Seferovi}, a Muslim who lived in an area under bombardment by Serbian paramilitary forces, fled to the mountains for safety. He testified at trial that he was so concerned about the welfare of his pet pigeons that he returned to town to feed them while the Serbian paramilitaries were still there. On his return to town, he saw Mr. Tadi} kill two policemen. Defence counsel contended at trial that the witness was never in town at the time of the killings. 59. The Defence maintains that the Appeals Chamber, in reviewing the factual finding of the Trial Chamber, is entitled to consider all relevant evidence and can reverse the Chamber’s finding if it is satisfied that no reasonable person could conclude that the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} proved that the Appellant was responsible for the killings. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999