Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence
OUTLINE
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
湖北省人民代表大会常务委员会关于集中修改、废止部分省本级地方性法规的决定
湖北省人大常委会
湖北省人民代表大会常务委员会关于集中修改、废止部分省本级地方性法规的决定
（2010年7月30日湖北省第十一届人民代表大会
常务委员会第十七次会议通过）
省十一届人大常委会第十七次会议决定：
一、对下列地方性法规中明显不适应社会主义市场经济和社会发展要求的规定作出修改
1、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国残疾人保障法〉办法》第十条、第十一条和第十三条中的“省和地、市、州”统一修改为“省和市、州”。
2、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国烟草专卖法〉办法》作如下修改：
①删去第三条中的“、地区行政公署”。
②删去第十三条第二款。
3、将《湖北省国防教育条例》作如下修改：
①将第八条第一款中的“省、地区、省辖市、自治州、县（含县级市和省辖市的区）”修改为“省、市、州、县”。
②将第八条第二款中的“地区、省辖市”修改为“设区的市”。
4、将《湖北省体育市场管理条例》第二十一条中的“市（地、州）”统一修改为“市（州）”。
5、将《湖北省科学技术协会条例》第七条第一款中的“省、市（含地、州，下同）”修改为“省、市（含州，下同）”。
6、对《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国归侨侨眷权益保护法〉办法》作如下修改：
①删去第十八条第二款中的“；实行作价补偿的房屋的作价补偿标准应当比当地其他房屋增加百分之三十”。
②删去第十九条中的“和侨眷中的高级知识分子子女”。
7、删去《湖北省侨属企业条例》第十一条第二款。
8、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国水土保持法〉办法》第三十二条中的“市、州（地）和县”修改为“市、州、县”。
9、将《湖北省森林采伐管理办法》第二十条中的“由地市州林业主管部门审批”修改为“由市、州林业主管部门审批”。
10、删去《湖北省木材流通管理条例》第十二条。
11、删去《湖北省农村集体经济承包合同管理条例（试行）》第三十一条中的“地、”。
12、将《湖北省土地管理实施办法》第十七条第一款修改为：“实行占用耕地补偿制度。非农业建设经批准占用耕地的，按照‘占多少、垦多少’的原则，由占用耕地的单位负责开垦与所占用耕地的数量和质量相当的耕地；没有条件开垦或者开垦的耕地不符合要求的，应当缴纳耕地开垦费。”
二、对下列地方性法规中有关行政许可的规定作出修改
1、删去《湖北省征兵工作条例》第十七条第三项中的“，发现没有登记或者没有核验的，不得办理有关手续”。
2、对《湖北省经纪人管理条例》作如下修改：
①删去第二章。
②将第十五条第一项修改为：“在法律、法规允许范围内自由开展经纪活动。”
③删去第十七条第一项。
④将第二十五条修改为：“经纪人开展业务活动未保持业务记录或者拒绝接受工商行政管理机关检查的，由县级以上工商行政管理机关责令改正，有违法所得的予以没收，并可处以五百元以上五千元以下的罚款；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。”
⑤删去第二十六条中的“可撤销直接责任人的《经纪资格证书》，并”。
3、对《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国烟草专卖法〉办法》作如下修改：
①删去第九条第一款。
②删去第十五条第一款中的“；经营进口、寄售外国烟草制品零售业务的单位，必须按规定取得特种烟草专卖零售企业许可证，并经工商行政管理部门核准登记”。
③删去第十五条第二款、第三款。
4、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国城市房地产管理法〉办法》第二十四条第一项修改为：“尚未建有地上房屋及其他附属物的；”
5、将《湖北省人口与计划生育条例》第二十一条第四款中的“发放上述证件按物价部门核定的标准收取工本费”修改为“发放上述证件不得收取任何费用”。
6、对《湖北省体育市场管理条例》作如下修改：
①将第十条第一款中的“对专业性强或技术要求高或危险性大的体育经营项目的管理实行许可证制度”修改为“经营高危险性体育项目的，应当依法办理行政许可，并取得《体育市场经营许可证》”。
②删去第十条第二款、第三款。
③删去第十一条。
④删去第二十五条。
7、对《湖北省宗教事务条例》作如下修改：
①删去第二十五条；
②将第四十六条第四项修改为：“未经批准擅自在宗教活动场所内改建或者新建建筑物的。”
8、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国防洪法〉办法》第十五条修改为：“护堤护岸林木，由河道、湖泊所在地的人民政府组织营造和管理。护堤护岸林木，不得任意砍伐。采伐护堤护岸林木后，应当于次年完成补种任务。”
9、对《湖北省森林采伐管理办法》作如下修改：
①将第十五条第二项修改为：“铁路、公路护路林和城镇林木的更新采伐，分别由有关主管部门核发，并报当地县林业主管部门备案。”
②将第十五条第五项修改为：“采伐农村集体经济组织的林木和农村居民的自留山、护路林，以及个人承包集体的林木，由当地县林业主管部门核发。”
③删去第十七条中的“和上年度更新验收证明”。
10、将《湖北省木材流通管理条例》第八条第一款修改为：“从事木材经营、加工的单位和个人，应当向当地县级以上人民政府林业主管部门申请办理木材经营、加工许可证。”
11、删去《湖北省林业管理办法》第二十六条第二款中的“；县以上水利部门管理的江汉干堤及其重要支堤的护堤护岸林木的更新采伐，由其主管部门核发”。
三、根据上位法的修改和国家的相关政策调整，对下列地方性法规中的相关内容作出修改
1、对《湖北省农村五保供养工作规定》作如下修改：
①将第七条第一款、第二款分别修改为：“确定五保对象，应当由本人申请或者由村民小组提名，经村民委员会评议，乡、民族乡、镇人民政府审核，报县级人民政府民政部门审批后，发给《农村五保供养证书》，并建立档案。”“《农村五保供养证书》由省民政厅统一印制。”
②将第八条中的“五保对象具有下列情形之一的，经村民委员会核实，报乡、民族乡、镇人民政府批准，停止其五保供养，收回《五保供养证书》”修改为“五保对象具有下列情形之一的，村民委员会或者农村福利院应当向乡、民族乡、镇人民政府报告，由乡、民族乡、镇人民政府审核并报县级人民政府民政部门核准后，核销《农村五保供养证书》”。
③删去第十八条。
2、将《湖北省经纪人管理条例》第三条、第十五条、第十九条和第二十四条中的“酬金”统一修改为“佣金”。
3、删去《湖北省道路运输条例》第八条中的“，自觉履行缴纳公路规费的义务”。
4、删去《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国产品质量法〉办法》第十六条。
5、将《湖北省水路交通管理条例》第二十五条第一款修改为：“本省地方船舶修造企业必须取得省国防科工部门核发的船舶修造技术许可证，并按核定范围从事船舶修造。”
6、对《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国促进科技成果转化法〉办法》作如下修改：
①将第七条修改为：“鼓励企业加大对科技成果转化的投入。企业为开发新技术、新产品、新工艺发生的研究开发费用，可以按照国家有关规定在计算应纳税所得额时加计扣除。”
②删去第十条。
7、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国归侨侨眷权益保护法〉办法》第十八条第一款中的“征用”修改为“征收”。
8、对《湖北省农村集体资产管理条例》作如下修改：
①将第七条第一款第三项修改为：“负责集体资产的统计、登记和评估管理；”
②将第十四条修改为：“农村集体经济组织以集体资产参股、联营或实行股份合作经营的，以招标方式发包、出租集体资产经营权的，必须清产核资，清理债权债务，并由具有合法资格的有关中介组织进行资产评估。集体资产评估结果，应当经农村经济组织成员大会或者成员代表大会确认，并报乡（镇）农村经济经营管理机构备案。”
③删去第二十条。
9、删去《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国防洪法〉办法》第三十条第一款、第二款。
10、将《湖北省森林采伐管理办法》第二十条中的“工程建设征占用林地”修改为“工程建设占用或者征收、征用林地”。
11、将《湖北省土地管理实施办法》第二十五条、第二十六条、第二十七条、第二十八条和第三十条中的“征用”统一修改为“征收”。
12、对《湖北省国土资源监督检查条例》作如下修改：
①将第八条中的“征用”修改为“征收”。
②将第十二条修改为：“查处国土资源违法案件，一般应当从立案之日起30日内作出决定，重大复杂案件在60日内作出决定。”
13、对《湖北省乡镇人民代表大会主席团工作若干规定》作如下修改：
①将第四条修改为：“乡、民族乡、镇人民代表大会主席团成员协助开展以下工作：（一）调查了解宪法、法律、法规，上级人民代表大会及其常务委员会的决议、决定，本级人民代表大会的决议、决定，在本行政区域内的执行情况；（二）办理代表向本级人民代表大会提出的属于本级人民代表大会职权范围内的议案；（三）向有关机关和组织转交代表向本级人民代表大会提出的对各方面工作的书面建议、批评和意见，并督促有关机关和组织研究处理和书面答复代表；（四）组织本级人民代表大会代表在本行政区域内开展视察、调查和评议工作；（五）联系在本行政区域内居住或者工作的上级人民代表大会代表。”
②将第八条修改为：“乡、民族乡、镇人民代表大会的活动经费，列入当地财政预算。”
四、对下列地方性法规中引用法律、法规名称的规定作出修改
1、将《湖北省实施＜中华人民共和国残疾人保障法＞办法》第四十一条中的“行政复议条例”修改为“行政复议法”。
2、将《湖北省实施＜中华人民共和国老年人权益保障法＞办法》第四十条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
3、《湖北省公路路政管理条例》第三十三条中的“《湖北省高等级公路管理条例》”修改为“《湖北省高速公路管理条例》”。
4、将《湖北省集贸市场管理条例》第三十四条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
5、将《湖北省专利保护条例》第三十三条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
6、将《湖北省国防教育条例》第二十条中的“行政复议条例”修改为“行政复议法”。
7、将《湖北省体育市场管理条例》第三十九条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
8、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国防洪法〉办法》作如下修改：
①将第十六条中的“湖北省计划生育条例”修改为“湖北省人口与计划生育条例”。
②将第三十五条和第三十六条中的“治安管理处罚条例”统一修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
9、将《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国水土保持法〉办法》第三十六条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
10、将《湖北省森林采伐管理办法》第三十三条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
11、《湖北省木材流通管理条例》第二十八条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
12、对《湖北省实施〈中华人民共和国农业技术推广法〉办法》作如下修改：
①将第二十条中的“《中华人民共和国技术合同法》和《中华人民共和国技术合同法实施条例》”修改为“《中华人民共和国合同法》”。
②将第三十四条中的“《中华人民共和国技术合同法》”修改为“《中华人民共和国合同法》”。
13、将《湖北省城市建设监察条例》第九条中的“治安管理处罚条例”修改为“治安管理处罚法”。
五、废止下列地方性法规
1、《湖北省公路规费征收管理条例》。
2、《湖北省文化市场管理暂行条例》。
本决定自公布之日起施行
