142 including the basic notion that the Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused. Although this provision was not in force at the time relevant to the present enquiry, it is worth noting that Sub-rule 73ter(B) provides that should a Pre-Defence Conference be held: […] the Trial Chamber may order that the defence, before the commencement of its case but after the close of the case for the prosecution, file the following: […]; (iii) a list of witnesses the defence intends to call with: (a) the name or pseudonym of each witness; (b) a summary of the facts on which each witness will testify; […] This Sub-rule does not require that the Defence file its witness statements. But the substance is not far removed: the provision has been designed to assist a Trial Chamber in preparing for hearing the Defence case, and the Prosecution in preparing for crossexamination of the witnesses. 324. As stated above, once the Defence has called a witness to testify, it is for a Trial Chamber to ascertain his or her credibility. If there is a witness statement, in the sense referred to above, it would be subject to disclosure only if so requested by the Prosecution and if the Trial Chamber considers it right in the circumstances to order disclosure. The provisions of Rule 68 are limited to the Prosecution and do not extend to the Defence. Disclosure would follow only once the Prosecution’s case has been closed. Even then, Subrules 89(C), 392 (D)393 and (E)394 would still apply to such a disclosed witness statement, with the consequence that a Trial Chamber might still exclude it. Furthermore, the provisions of Sub-rule 90(F) relating to self-incrimination would of course apply. 325. The Appeals Chamber is also of opinion that no reliance can be placed on a claim to privilege. Rule 97 395 relates to lawyer-client privilege; it does not cover prior Defence witness statements. 392 Sub-rule 89(C) provides: “A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.” 393 Sub-rule 89(D) provides: “A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial.” 394 Sub-rule 89(E) provides: “A Chamber may request verification of the authenticity of evidence obtained out of court.” 395 Rule 97 provides in part: “All communications between lawyer and client shall be regarded as privileged, and consequently not subject to disclosure at trial […].” Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999