The Appeals Chamber noted the Trial Chamber’s consideration of the Prosecution’s position that “most [of its] witnesses for the two cases are identical and likely need to be called for both trials”.[1] Consequently, the Appeals Chamber found that there will be lesser hardship for some witnesses if only one trial is held and that this should weigh in favour of joinder.[2]  Moreover, if some witnesses are specific for charges alleged with regard to just one of the appellants, it is unlikely that they will suffer hardship by being cross-examined by each Appellant for a total of three times.  In any event, as previously noted by the Appeals Chamber, under Rule 90(F) of the Rules, the Trial Chamber can mitigate any potential burden to a witness caused by consecutive cross-examination because it “has discretion to regulate the examination of witnesses so as to avoid repetitive questioning during cross-examination” subject to the obligation to respect the rights of the accused.[3]