137 witness statements from disclosure. 370 The privilege adopted by the International Tribunal in Rule 97 of the Rules does not cover third party statements given to Defence counsel, at least not once the Defence decides to present evidence by calling a particular witness. 371 Once the Defence calls a witness, that evidence should be subjected to the same scrutiny as that of the Prosecution. 372 309. The Prosecution also submits that no implied privilege exempting Defence witness statements from disclosure can be inferred from the Rules (as Judge Stephen found, with Judge Vohrah concurring). In its view, there is no ambiguity in the Rules in this regard, and Judge Stephen’s reference to the legal professional privilege found in national jurisdictions is incorrect. 373 The Prosecution submits that, even if an ambiguity exists, it is incorrect to resolve it by referring to the most common practice in adversarial jurisdictions, despite the obvious influence of adversarial systems on the Rules. 374 Sub-rule 89(B) of the Rules expressly requires the application of “rules of evidence which will best favour a fair determination of the matter before it and are consonant with the spirit of the Statute and the general principles of law”. In line with this provision, the Trial Chamber should have favoured an interpretation allowing it to order disclosure of Defence witness statements “where it considers that this would enable it to reach a verdict based on all pertinent evidence”. 375 The Prosecution relies in particular upon the restrictions set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Nobles. 376 310. The Prosecution also submits that the disclosure of prior statements of Defence witnesses is not otherwise inconsistent with the principles of a fair trial. 377 In particular, the principle of equality of arms does not require that the Defence be allowed to call witnesses under conditions more favourable than those afforded to the Prosecution. 378 If the Defence 369 T. 186 (20 April 1999). Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 6.7-6.14. 371 T. 187 (20 April 1999). 372 T. 187 (20 April 1999). 373 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 6.15-6.18. 374 Ibid., para. 6.20. 375 Ibid., para. 6.21. 376 422 U.S. 225 (1975). 377 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 6.25-6.31. 378 Ibid., para. 6.31. 370 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999