115. […] Moreover, Rule 82(A) of the Rules does not, as a matter of principle, bar trial chambers from relying on the evidence presented by a co-defendant where that evidence supports the Prosecution case. Trial chambers are tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused and must do so in light of the entirety of the evidence admitted into the record.[1] As noted by the Trial Chamber, the Rules provide for remedies where the presentation of incriminating evidence through co-accused after the close of the Prosecution case may prejudice one of the co‑accused. In the instant case, the evidence of Witnesses Reyntjens and Karemano upon which the Trial Chamber relied was already part of the Prosecution case‑in-chief and was only accepted as corroborative of Prosecution evidence.[2] The record shows that Nyiramasuhuko was also afforded the opportunity to cross‑examine these witnesses at length and Nyiramasuhuko does not show that she requested further cross-examination, recall, or the presentation of rejoinder evidence. Accordingly, Nyiramasuhuko does not demonstrate how the Trial Chamber’s reliance on this evidence violated her fair trial rights or caused her prejudice.