[1] Prosecutor v. Anto Furund‘ija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement of 21 July 2000 (“Furund‘ija Appeal Judgement”), para. 61.

[2] In this connection, the Appeals Chamber recalls that a Chamber can find the particular evidence inadmissible to prove a material fact of which the accused was not on notice, but admissible with respect to other allegations sufficiently pleaded: Arsène Shalom Ntahobali & Pauline Nyiramasuhuko v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-21-AR73, “Decision of the Appeals by Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and Arsène Shalom Ntahobali on the ‘Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Declare Parts of the Evidence of Witnesses RV and QBZ inadmissible’”, 2 July 2004, para. 15; Pauline Nyiramasuhuko v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-42-AR73, “Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s Request for Reconsideration”, 27 September 2004, para. 12; Muvunyi Decision, para. 55 (“If evidence is relevant to a charge in the current indictment and is probative of that charge, then subject to any other ground for exclusion that may be advanced by the Defence, that evidence should be admissible.”).

[3] Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 92; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 31; Naletilić & Martinović Appeal Judgement, para. 25.

[4] For instance, in certain circumstances, the Trial Chamber could allow the Defence to recall witnesses for cross-examination after the Defence has completed further investigations: see The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73, “Decision on Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeal Against Trial Chamber III Decision of 8 October 2003 Denying Leave to File an Amended Indictment”, 19 December 2003 (“Karemera Decision”), para. 28.