34 2. The Nature of the Conflict 83. The requirement that the conflict be international for the grave breaches regime to operate pursuant to Article 2 of the Statute has not been contested by the parties. 84. It is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States. In addition, in case of an internal armed conflict breaking out on the territory of a State, it may become international (or, depending upon the circumstances, be international in character alongside an internal armed conflict) if (i) another State intervenes in that conflict through its troops, or alternatively if (ii) some of the participants in the internal armed conflict act on behalf of that other State. 85. In the instant case, the Prosecution claims that at all relevant times, the conflict was an international armed conflict between two States, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BH”) on the one hand, and the FRY on the other. 102 Judge McDonald, in her dissent, also found the conflict to be international at all relevant times. 103 86. The Trial Chamber found the conflict to be an international armed conflict between BH and FRY until 19 May 1992, when the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina. 104 However, the Trial Chamber did not explicitly state what the nature of the conflict was after 19 May 1992. As the Prosecution points out, “[t]he Trial Chamber made no express finding on the classification of the armed conflict between the Bosnian Serb 102 See para. 2.25 of the Cross-Appellant’s Brief: “?Theg SFRY/FRY is a Party to an international armed conflict with […] BH on the basis that the Trial Chamber found that until 19 May 1992 the JNA was involved in an international armed conflict with the BH, and that thereafter the VJ was directly involved in an armed conflict against the BH. Consequently, it is submitted that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that an international armed conflict existed between the BH and the FRY during 1992.” (emphasis added). 103 See para. 1 of Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald Regarding the Applicability of Article 2 of the Statute, The Prosecutor v. Du{ko Tadi}, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber II, 7 May 1997 (“Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald”) where she held: “I find that at all times relevant to the Indictment, the armed conflict in opština Prijedor was international in character […]”. 104 See Judgement, paras. 569-608: “569. [...] ?Igt is clear from the evidence before the Trial Chamber that, from the beginning of 1992 until 19 May 1992, a state of international armed conflict existed in at least part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was an armed conflict between the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the one hand and those of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), being the JNA (later the VJ), working with sundry paramilitary and Bosnian Serb forces, on the other. [...]. 570. For evidence of this it is enough to refer generally to the evidence presented as to the bombardment of Sarajevo, the seat of government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in April 1992 by Serb forces, their attack on towns along Bosnia and Herzegovina’s border with Serbia on the Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999