23 (4) issue binding orders to States for, inter alia, the taking and production of evidence; and (5) issue binding orders to States to assist a party or to summon a witness and order his or her attendance under the Rules. A further important measure available in such circumstances is: (6) for the President of the Tribunal to send, at the instance of the Trial Chamber, a request to the State authorities in question for their assistance in securing the attendance of a witness. In addition, whenever the aforementioned measures have proved to be to no avail, a Chamber may, upon the request of a party or proprio motu: (7) order that proceedings be adjourned or, if the circumstances so require, that they be stayed. 53. Relying on the principle of equality of arms, the Defence is submitting that the Appellant did not receive a fair trial because relevant and admissible evidence was not presented due to lack of cooperation of the authorities in the Republika Srpska in securing the attendance of certain witnesses. The Defence is not complaining that the Trial Chamber was negligent in responding to a request for assistance. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Defence has not substantiated its claim that the Appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. There is no evidence to show that the Trial Chamber failed to assist him when seised of a request to do so. Indeed, the Defence concedes that the Trial Chamber gave every assistance it could to the Defence when asked to do so, and even allowed a substantial adjournment at the close of the Prosecution’s case to help Defence efforts in tracing witnesses. 90 Further, the Appellant acknowledges that the Trial Chamber did not deny the Defence attendance of any witness but, on the contrary, took virtually all steps requested and necessary within its authority to assist the Appellant in presenting witness testimony. Numerous instances of the granting of such motions and orders by the Trial Chamber, on matters such as protective measures for witnesses, approving the giving 90 T. 47 (19 April 1999); Judgement, para. 32 (“Following a recess of three weeks after the close of the Prosecution case to permit the Defence to make its final preparations, the Defence case opened on 10 September 1996 […].”). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999