19 Human Rights (1950), 72 and the American Convention on Human Rights (1969). 73 The right to a fair trial is central to the rule of law: it upholds the due process of law. The Defence submits that due process includes not only formal or procedural due process but also substantive due process. 74 44. The parties do not dispute that the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Statute covers the principle of equality of arms. This interpretation accords with findings of the Human Rights Committee (“HRC”) under the ICCPR. Morael v. France 75 The HRC stated in that a fair hearing under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR must at a minimum include, inter alia, equality of arms. Similarly, in Robinson v. Jamaica 76 and Wolf v. Panama 77 the HRC found that there was inequality of arms in violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. Likewise, the case law under the ECHR cited by the Defence accepts that the principle is implicit in the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial. The principle of equality of arms between the prosecutor and accused in a criminal trial goes to the heart of the fair trial guarantee. The Appeals Chamber finds that there is no reason to distinguish the notion of fair trial under Article 20(1) of the Statute from its equivalent in the ECHR and ICCPR, as interpreted by the relevant judicial and supervisory treaty bodies under those instruments. Consequently, the Chamber holds that the principle of equality of arms falls within the fair trial guarantee under the Statute. 45. What has to be decided in the present appeal is the scope of application of the principle. The Defence alleges that it should include not only procedural equality, but also substantive equality. 78 In its view, matters outside the control of the Trial Chamber can prejudice equality of arms if their effect is to disadvantage one party disproportionately. The Prosecution rejoins that equality of arms refers to the equality of the parties before the Trial Chamber. It argues that the obligation on the Trial Chamber is to ensure that the 72 Article 6(1) of the ECHR provides in part: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” 73 Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides in part: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labour, fiscal or any other nature.” 74 T. 29-35 (19 April 1999). 75 Morael v. France, Communication No. 207/1986, 28 July 1989, U.N. Doc. CCPR/8/Add/1, 416. 76 Robinson v. Jamaica, Communication No. 223/1987, 30 March 1989, U.N. Doc. CCPR/8/Add.1, 426. 77 Wolf v. Panama, Communication No. 289/1988, 26 March 1992, U.N. Doc. CCPR/11/Add.1, 399. 78 T. 29-35 (19 April 1999). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999