32 facts, the Prosecution draws the inference that the FRY was exercising effective military control over the VRS. 2. The Defence Case 75. The Defence asserts that the Trial Chamber was correct in applying the “effective control” test derived from Nicaragua and submits that the “demonstrable link” test is incorrect. The Defence formulates the test which the Appeals Chamber should apply as “were the Bosnian Serbs acting as ‘organs’ of another State?” 99 76. The Defence submits that it is misleading to distinguish Nicaragua on the basis that the decision is concerned only with State responsibility. The Defence further argues that the Court in Nicaragua was concerned with the broader question of which part of international humanitarian law should apply to the relevant conduct. 77. On the facts of the present case there is no evidential basis for concluding that after 19 May 1992, the VRS was either effectively controlled by or could be regarded as an agent of the FRY government. The Defence’s submission is that the FRY and the Republika Srpska coordinated with each other, solely as allies. For this reason, the VRS was not an organ of the FRY. 78. The Defence submits that the “demonstrable link” test is not the correct test to be applied under Article 2 of the Statute. The Defence argues that the test has no authority in international law and submits that it should also be rejected for policy reasons. If the Appeals Chamber were to accept the “demonstrable link” test, this could result in the undesirable outcome of a State being held responsible for the actions of another State or entity over which the State did not have any effective control. Further, the Defence submits that the test at issue introduces uncertainty into international law as it is unclear what degree of link is necessary in order to satisfy the test. 99 See Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.6. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999