587. The Appeals Chamber next turns to the Prosecution’s contention that the Trial Chamber improperly constricted the Prosecution’s choice of evidence to witnesses and exhibits adduced in the original proceedings. The Prosecution principally supports this argument with reference to Article 14 of the Statute, which vests the Prosecution with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute persons within the Mechanism’s jurisdiction.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls, however, that the true intent and extent of the independence accorded to the Prosecutor under this article is to ensure that no government or other institution or person, including the Judges of the Mechanism, can direct the Prosecutor as to whom he or she is to investigate or to charge; it is erroneous to suggest that this independence extends to the way in which its case is to be presented before a trial chamber.[2]

588. Regarding the Prosecution’s additional references to Article 16 of the Statute (concerning the Prosecutor’s power to investigate and prepare indictments) and Rules 70(E)(ii) and (iii), and 102 of the Rules (governing the filing of witness and exhibit lists and the order of the presentation of evidence), the Appeals Chamber considers that these provisions do not imbue the Prosecution with the sole authority to have admitted in trial any evidence it deems relevant to its case. […]