24 of evidence via video-conference link from Banja Luka in the Republika Srpska, and granting confidentiality and safe conduct to several Defence witnesses are set forth in the Judgement of the Trial Chamber. 91 Indeed, the Decision on Admissibility of Additional Evidence, by which the Defence was precluded from presenting additional evidence, was based on the fact that the Defence had failed to establish that it would have been in the interests of justice to admit such evidence. This indicates that the fact that it could not present such evidence did not detract from the fairness of the trial. 54. A further example of a measure of the Trial Chamber which was designed to assist in the preparation and presentation of the Defence case is that the Trial Chamber��s Presiding Judge brought to the attention of the President of the International Tribunal certain difficulties concerning the possible attendance of three witnesses who had been summoned by the Defence. 92 She requested the President of the International Tribunal to send a letter to the Acting President of the Republika Srpska, Mrs. B. Plavsic, to urge her to assist the Defence in securing the presence and cooperation of these Defence witnesses. Consequently, on 19 September 1996, the President of the Tribunal sent a letter to Mrs. Plavsic. In this letter, he made reference to obstacles encountered by the Defence in securing the cooperation of these witnesses. In view, inter alia, of the accused’s right to a fair trial, Mrs. Plavsic was therefore enjoined to “take whatever action is necessary immediately to resolve this matter so that the Defence may go forward with its case.” 93 55. The Appeals Chamber can conceive of situations where a fair trial is not possible because witnesses central to the defence case do not appear due to the obstructionist efforts of a State. In such circumstances, the defence, after exhausting all the other measures mentioned above, has the option of submitting a motion for a stay of proceedings. The Defence opined during the oral hearing that the reason why such action was not taken in the present case may have been due to trial counsel’s concern regarding the long period of detention on remand. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Rules envision some relief in such a situation, in the form of provisional release, which, pursuant to Sub-rule 65(B), may be granted “in exceptional circumstances”. It is not hard to imagine that a stay of proceedings occasioned by the frustration of a fair trial under prevailing trial conditions 91 Judgement, paras. 29-35. T. 59, 60 (20 April 1999). 93 Letter from President Cassese to Mrs. B. Plavsic of 19 September 1996, referred to by Judge Shahabuddeen during the hearing on 20 April 1999 (ibid.). 92 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999