21 unfairly at a disadvantage.” 84 It can safely be concluded from the ECHR jurisprudence, as cited by the Defence, that equality of arms obligates a judicial body to ensure that neither party is put at a disadvantage when presenting its case. 49. There is nothing in the ECHR case law that suggests that the principle is applicable to conditions, outside the control of a court, that prevented a party from securing the attendance of certain witnesses. All the cases considered applications that the judicial body had the power to grant. 85 50. The HRC has interpreted the principle as designed to provide to a party rights and guarantees that are procedural in nature. The Netherlands, 86 The HRC observed in B.d.B. et al. v. a civil case, that Article 14 of the ICCPR “guarantees procedural equality” to ensure that the conduct of judicial proceedings is fair. Where applicants were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in judicial proceedings conducted in the absence of procedural guarantees, the HRC has found a violation of the right to fair trial under Article 14(1). 87 The communications decided under the ICCPR are silent as to whether the principle extends to cover a party’s inability to secure the attendance at trial of certain witnesses where fault is attributable, not to the court, but to an external, independent entity. 51. The case law mentioned so far relates to civil or criminal proceedings before domestic courts. These courts have the capacity, if not directly, at least through the extensive enforcement powers of the State, to control matters that could materially affect the fairness of a trial. It is a different matter for the International Tribunal. The dilemma faced by this Tribunal is that, to hold trials, it must rely upon the cooperation of States 84 Ibid., para. 34. In Kaufman v. Belgium, 50 DR 98, the Eur. Commission H. R. held that equality of arms did not give the applicant a right to lodge a counter-memorial. In Neumeister v. Austria, Eur. Court of H. R., judgement of 27 June 1968, Series A, no. 8, the Court decided that the principle did not apply to the examination of the applicant’s request for provisional release, despite the prosecutor having been heard ex parte. In Bendenoun v. France, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 24 February 1994, Series A, no. 284, the Court ruled that an applicant who did not receive a complete file from the tax authorities was not entitled thereto under the principle of equality of arms because he was aware of its contents and gave no reason for the request. In Dombo Beheer B.V. v. The Netherlands, Eur. Court H. R., judgement of 27 October 1993, Series A, no. 274, the Court held that there was a breach of equality of arms where the single first hand witness for the applicant company was barred from testifying whereas the defendant bank’s witness was heard. 86 B. d. B et al. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 273/1989, 30 March 1989, U.N. Doc. A/44/40, 442. 87 Nqalula Mpandanjila et al. v. Zaire, Communication No 138/1983, 26 March 1986, U.N. Doc. A/41/40, 121. 85 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999