132. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a decisive factor in determining the degree of specificity with which the Prosecution is required to particularise the facts of its case in the indictment is the nature of the alleged criminal conduct charged.[1] The Trial Chamber correctly stated that where an accused “is alleged to have given precise orders for the killing of specific individuals, the obligation to provide precisions as to the circumstances thereof is as its highest”.[2] In the present case, the Prosecution was, at the time of the filing of the Indictment,[3] in a position to provide information that was obviously valuable to the preparation of Nsengiyumva’s defence by naming the victim, and should have done so.[4] The Indictment was therefore defective in respect of the identity of this victim, as well as the time and place of this particular event.