188. […] Trial Chambers, which are courts with coordinate jurisdiction, are not mutually bound by their decisions, although a Trial Chamber is free to follow the decision of another Trial Chamber if it finds that decision persuasive. The fact that a bench of the Trial Chamber comprises the same Judges in any two cases does not alter the validity of this principle.[1]

260. The Appeals Chamber recalls that decisions of trial chambers have no binding force on each other.[1] Rather, a trial chamber must make its own final assessment of the evidence on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the case before it.[2] Following an analysis of the documentary and witness evidence before it,[3] the Trial Chamber was entitled to reach a conclusion as to Vasiljević’s presence that differed from that of the Vasiljević trial chamber. The Appellants have not shown that the Trial Chamber erred in its application of this principle. The argument that the Trial Chamber committed an error of law in so doing is therefore dismissed.

52.     The Appeals Chamber further recalls that decisions of individual trial chambers have no binding force on other trial chambers.[1] A trial chamber must make its own final assessment of the evidence on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the case before it.[2] Consequently, two reasonable triers of facts may reach different but equally reasonable conclusions when determining the probative value of the evidence presented at trial.[3] Likewise, the Appeals Chamber considers that an assessment as to whether the defence has been prejudiced by the Prosecution’s disclosure violations and whether a remedy is appropriate depends on the particular circumstances of the case.[4] An error cannot be established by simply demonstrating that other trial chambers have exercised their discretion in a different way.[5]

See also paras 257, 262, 439, 543.