Bralo claimed that his cooperation went beyond mere cooperation with the Prosecution and argued that he actually cooperated “with the wider aims of the International Tribunal itself”. At para. 37, the Appeals Chamber found:

37. […] While the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal has consistently identified cooperation under Rule 101(B)(ii) of the Rules primarily as cooperation with the Prosecution,[1] cooperation is not to be “construed narrowly and singularly”,[2] and Trial Chambers accordingly have the discretion to take other forms of cooperation into account by examining them under different headings: what matters is that Trial Chambers fulfil their obligation under Rule 101(B)(ii) to consider all mitigating circumstances before them.[3]