138 decides to call a witness at trial, that witness should in principle be subject to the same scrutiny as Prosecution witnesses. 379 2. The Defence Case 311. The Defence submits that the Trial Chamber’s Witness Statements Decision was correctly decided. 312. The Trial Chamber was correct in holding that the Statute and Rules do not specifically deal with the problem at issue. 380 The Defence also submits that, in light of the essentially adversarial system under which the Tribunal operates, the term “the general principles of law” in Sub-rule 89(B) should be interpreted as meaning “the general principles of law emerging from adversarial systems”. 381 313. The Defence submits that the general principles referred to may be summarised as follows. To begin with, the burden of proving the allegation is on the Prosecution. The Prosecution must inform the accused of the charges and the evidence against him. The accused has the right to remain silent and to require the Prosecution to prove its case. There is no duty similar to that imposed on the Prosecution for the Defence to disclose its evidence, and the privilege attaching to Defence witness statements is not waived when the witness in question gives evidence. 382 314. It is also submitted that to allow such disclosure would increase the inequality of arms between the parties. 383 Furthermore, the Defence emphasises that because privilege can be claimed for communications between the client and third parties when litigation is ongoing in most adversarial jurisdictions, such disclosure would be incorrect. 384 The Defence also submits that such a disclosure requirement might deter witnesses from 379 Ibid. Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 6.3; Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 5(b). 381 Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 6.13; Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 5(d). 382 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, paras. 5(f)-(g). 383 T. 275 (21 April 1999). 384 T. 275, 278 (21 April 1999). 380 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999