68 necessity” and noted that such evidence “establishes nothing more than the potential for control inherent in the relationship of dependency which such financing produced.” 193 In the Appeals Chamber’s view, however, and while the evidence may not have disclosed the exact details of how the VRS related to the main command in Belgrade, it is nevertheless important to bear in mind that a clear intention existed to mask the commanding role of the FRY; a point which was amply demonstrated by the Prosecution. 194 In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the finding of the Trial Chamber that the relationship between the FRY/VJ and VRS amounted to cooperation and coordination rather than overall control suffered from having taken largely at face value those features which had been put in place intentionally by Belgrade to make it seem as if their links with Pale were as partners acting only in cooperation with each other. Such an approach is not only flawed in the specific circumstances of this case, but also potentially harmful in the generality of cases. Undue emphasis upon the ostensible structures and overt declarations of the belligerents, as opposed to a nuanced analysis of the reality of their relationship, may tacitly suggest to groups who are in de facto control of military forces that responsibility for the acts of such forces can be evaded merely by resort to a superficial restructuring of such forces or by a facile declaration that the reconstituted forces are henceforth independent of their erstwhile sponsors. 155. Finally, it must be noted that the Trial Chamber found the various forms of assistance provided to the armed forces of the Republika Srpska by the Government of the FRY to have been “crucial” to the pursuit of their activities and that “those forces were almost completely dependent on the supplies of the VJ to carry out offensive operations.”195 Despite this finding, the Trial Chamber declined to make a finding of overall control. Much was made of the lack of concrete evidence of specific instructions. Proof of “effective” control was also held to be insufficient, 196 on the grounds, once again, that the Trial Chamber lacked explicit evidence of direct instructions having been issued from existing administrative mechanisms for financing those soldiers and their operations would be relied on after 19 May 1992[…].” (ibid.). 193 Ibid. 194 See in this regard the testimony of the expert witness Dr. James Gow, transcript of hearing in The Prosecutor v. Du{ko Tadi}, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, 10 May 1996, pp. 308-309; ibid., 13 May 1996, pp. 330-338. 195 Judgement, para. 605. 196 It was deemed insufficient by the Trial Chamber that the VJ “‘made use of the potential for control inherent in that dependence’, or was otherwise given effective control over those forces […]” (ibid.; emphasis added). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999