29 act reasonably in concluding from the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} that the Appellant was responsible for the killing of the two policemen. The Appeals Chamber does not accept as inherently implausible the witness’ claim that the reason why he returned to the town where the Serbian paramilitary forces had been attacking, and from which he had escaped, was to feed his pet pigeons. It is conceivable that a person may do such a thing, even though one might think such action to be an irrational risk. The Trial Chamber, after seeing the witness, hearing his testimony, and observing him under cross-examination, chose to accept his testimony as reliable evidence. There is no basis for the Appeals Chamber to consider that the Trial Chamber acted unreasonably in relying on that evidence for its finding that the Appellant killed the two men. C. Conclusion 67. The Appellant has failed to show that Nihad Seferovi}’s reliability as a witness is suspect, or that his testimony was inherently implausible. Since the Appellant did not establish that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on the evidence of Mr. Seferovi} for its factual finding that the Appellant killed the two men, the Appeals Chamber sees no reason to overturn the finding. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999