35 Army (VRS) and the BH after the VRS was established in May 1992”. 105 Nevertheless, it may be held that the Trial Chamber at least implicitly considered that after 19 May 1992 the conflict became internal in nature. 106 87. In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence to justify the Trial Chamber’s finding of fact that the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 was international in character. 107 The question whether after 19 May 1992 it continued to be international or became instead exclusively internal turns on the issue of whether Bosnian Serb forces – in whose hands the Bosnian victims in this case found themselves – could be considered as de iure or de facto organs of a foreign Power, namely the FRY. 3. The Legal Criteria for Establishing When, in an Armed Conflict Which is Prima Facie Internal, Armed Forces May Be Regarded as Acting On Behalf of a Foreign Power, Thereby Rendering the Conflict International (a) International Humanitarian Law 88. The Prosecution maintains that the alleged perpetrator of crimes must be “sufficiently linked to a Party to the conflict” in order to come under the jurisdiction of Article 2 of the Statute. 108 It further contends that “a showing of a demonstrable link between the VRS and the FRY or VJ” is sufficient. 109 According to the Prosecution, “?sguch a link could, at most, be proven by a showing of a general form of control. This Drina River and their invasion of south-eastern Herzegovina from Serbia and Montenegro […].” (emphasis added). 105 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.5. 106 See Judgement, paras. 607-608. 107 In addition to the evidence referred to in para. 570 of the Judgement, reference may also be made to the facts cited by Judge Li in his Separate Opinion to the Tadi} Decision on Jurisdiction (paras. 17-19), for example BH’s Declaration that it was at war with the FRY and the reports of various expert bodies suggesting that the conflict was international. Moreover, in three Rule 61 Decisions involving the conflict between the Serbs and the BH Government (Nikolic, Vukovar Hospital, and Karad`ic and Mladic), Trial Chambers have found the conflict to have been an international armed conflict. (See “Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence”, The Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikoli}, Case No.: IT-94-2-R61, Trial Chamber I, 20 October 1995, para 30 (Nikoli} (1995) II ICTY JR 738); “Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61”, The Prosecutor v. Mile Mrksi} et al., Case No.: IT-95-13-R61, Trial Chamber I, 3 April 1996, para. 25; “Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules Procedure and Evidence”, The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karad`i} and Ratko Mladi}, Case No.: IT-95-18-R61, Trial Chamber I, 11 July 1996, para. 88)). 108 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.31. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999