28. Article 26 of the Code of Conduct further provides that, subject to three exceptions, “[c]ounsel shall not act as an advocate in a proceeding in which counsel is likely to be a necessary witness”.[1]

29. […] At the time of the questioning, the investigators were only able to provide Prlić with a list of general questions reflecting the nature of subjects which were of interest to the Prosecution, and not specific questions they wished to have answered.[2] Considering these circumstances, and even assuming that Salahović knew about the subject-matter interest of the Prosecution when the questioning began, the Appeals Chamber concludes that, on the basis of the facts before it, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that there was, at that stage, no likelihood that Salahović would become a witness.[3] Thus, this part of the Prlić Appeal is also rejected. As a consequence, the Appeals Chamber further dismisses Prlić’s arguments related to the fact that the alleged conflict of interest would have affected not just him, but the administration of justice as a whole.[4]