16. […] [Counsel Pollard] was entitled to exercise such powers of the Prosecutor as have been entrusted to her under Rule 37(B) of the Rules. In the exercise of such powers, Counsel Pollard was required to adhere to the standards of professional conduct set out in Regulation No. 2 [Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 2, Standards of Professional Conduct for Prosecution Counsel (1999)]. In addition, as a staff member of the United Nations, she also had a duty to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, its Staff Rules and its Staff Regulations, which include a duty to act with integrity and honesty.[1] Similar standards are imposed upon defence counsel appearing before the Tribunal who have a duty to “act honestly, fairly, skilfully, diligently and courageously”.[2] However, the Appeals Chamber stresses that the integrity of the judicial process demands that these ethical standards be applicable to all counsel appearing before the Tribunal. All counsel have a duty to adhere, as a minimum, to these ethical standards. This is independent of formal provisions or counsel’s membership of a national bar.

[…]

20. […] Counsel Pollard, like all Prosecution counsel, was required to follow the standards of professional conduct expected of all counsel appearing before the Tribunal in addition to those prescribed in Regulation No. 2, which include the duty to demonstrate candour before the Tribunal and not knowingly to make incorrect statements of material facts to the Tribunal.[3] It is, of course, essential that the Chambers of the Tribunal be able to rely on the integrity of counsel on both sides and that counsel be able to rely on each other’s statements.[4] Dereliction in the duty of honesty may, in appropriate cases, be cause for sanctions or for contempt proceedings. Such dereliction by Prosecution counsel may also be contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and a breach of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. […]