12. In granting protective measures in the present case, the Trial Chamber considered that “the fears of the potential witnesses and their families, if they testify on behalf of [Kamuhanda] without protective measures” were well founded.[1] The Appeals Chamber notes that, following the death of a witness who had benefited from protective measures, security concerns may remain for the witness’s family. Therefore, the security concerns of members of a deceased witness’s family may constitute a relevant consideration in determining whether the protective measures granted to the witness should remain in place or be rescinded under Rule 86(A) of the Rules.