148 9. From the foregoing, I must conclude that there is no general principle of law that would prohibit Prosecution appeals against acquittals. Therefore, it is unnecessary to analyse whether Article 25 is consistent with non bis in idem. 10. It seems to me that this conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the rationale which underpins the common law’s vigorous approach is absent in the context of prosecutions before the International Tribunal. The impetus for the special weight given to acquittals is the desire to prevent the government, with its vast superior resources, from abusing its power to prosecute accused persons by re-prosecuting them until it manages to obtain convictions.8 In the International Tribunal, while the Prosecution prosecutes on behalf of the international community, it is not supported by a governmental apparatus with abundant resources. Like the Defence, it too must rely on the co-operation of external entities. Moreover, Articles 20(1) and 21(4) guarantee to each party equality of arms. 11. I accept that Prosecution appeals against acquittals conform to the requirements of Article 25. However, I think that the Appeals Chamber should analyse, at the sentencing stage, whether a successful Prosecution appeal should put the person in a worse position than that at the end of trial (“reformatio in pejus”). 12. With respect to the fourth ground of cross-appeal, on the question of whether there exists a crime against humanity where the accused acted out of purely personal motives, I join in the reasoning and conclusion offered by my learned colleague, Judge Shahabuddeen, in his separate opinion. I would add only the following to elaborate my own position. The reason that a crime against humanity under Article 5 cannot be committed for purely personal motives completely unrelated to the attack on a civilian population is that, being a crime under international law, there must be a proximate connection between the underlying act(s) and the surrounding armed conflict. An unlawful act perpetrated in the context of an armed conflict, but unrelated to the hostilities, is a common crime under national law. The fact that such a crime was committed in the context of an armed conflict does not render it subject to international humanitarian law. 13. On the question of whether the Prosecution has a right to the production of Defence witness statements, constituting the fifth ground of cross-appeal, I agree with 8 See Green v. United States, supra note 2.