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 ...”.
关于中央企业2009年开展效能监察工作的指导意见
国务院国有资产监督管理委员会
关于中央企业2009年开展效能监察工作的指导意见
国资纪发[2009]3号
各中央企业纪委（纪检组）、监察局（部、室）：
为深入贯彻第十七届中央纪委三次全会精神，认真落实中央企业纪检监察工作会议部署，紧紧围绕中央企业改革、调整、创新、提高的中心任务，认真履行监督检查职责，进一步深入开展效能监察工作，促进企业不断强化执行力，持续提高管理水平，保证中央有关科学发展重大决策部署的落实和企业平稳快速发展，现就中央企业2009年开展效能监察工作提出以下意见。
一、统一立项，对“三重一大”集体决策制度执行情况进行专项监察
2009年，国资委将进一步深化中央企业公司制股份制改革，积极推进中央企业董事会试点工作，进一步促进企业完善法人治理结构。各中央企业要紧紧围绕这项重大任务，在2008年国资委组织开展“三重一大”集体决策制度贯彻落实情况专项督查调研工作的基础上，统一组织对所属二、三级企业贯彻落实“三重一大”集体决策制度情况开展专项效能监察，促进企业完善法人治理结构，规范领导人员用权，防止决策失误，防范决策风险。
一是在“三重一大”集体决策制度建设方面，重点监察：“三重一大”事项界定在本企业是否明确；“三重一大”集体决策制度是否系统完整、便于操作；决策主体职责权限划分是否明确清晰、便于执行；决策程序及决策方式是否规范具体、便于实施；决策制度有无重大遗漏等。
二是在“三重一大”集体决策制度执行方面，重点监察：“三重一大”涉及事项决策前是否进行充分酝酿论证；决策时是否充分发扬民主并按规定程序和方式形成决策；决策过程有无记录，记录是否完整；“三重一大”集体决策制度是否一贯坚持并规范操作等。
三是在“三重一大”集体决策制度监督方面，重点监察：有无相关的监督规定；监督主体及监督职责、程序是否明确；监督渠道是否畅通，监督过程能否保证有效制约；决策后评价制度、决策失误责任追究制度及纠错机制是否建立并严格执行等。
二、因企制宜，认真抓好效能监察的自选立项工作
2009年，既是国资委加快中央企业调整重组步伐，进一步优化国有经济布局结构的一年，也是中央企业克服困难，应对国际金融危机挑战，抓住机遇，调整优化上水平的一年。各中央企业纪检监察机构要适应国内外经济形势，紧紧围绕当前企业的中心任务，参照下列指导项目，从实际出发，针对急需解决的突出问题做好效能监察的自选立项工作。
（一）围绕重大投资项目开展效能监察，加强对中央有关扩大内需、促进经济增长政策执行情况的监督检查。重点对投资安排、项目管理、资金管理、成本管理、合同管理、招标采购、工程进度和质量安全管理等重要环节加强监督控制，严禁违反决策权限和程序批准投资项目，严禁擅自改变投资方向和内容、随意扩大投资规模、提高或降低投资标准，严禁滞留、挤占、截留、挪用和虚报冒领项目资金。加强过程监督，督促企业建立健全项目管理责任体系和各项管理制度，细化实施环节的责任制，严格履行决策程序，严肃责任追究，提高项目质量和投资效益，有效管控风险，消除隐患和安全死角，避免出现违规违纪问题，确保管理规范、项目优质、资金安全、干部廉洁。为促进中央企业落实中央扩大内需、保持经济平稳较快发展做出积极贡献。
（二）围绕企业改制、产权转让项目开展效能监察，加强对国有经济布局结构优化过程的监督检查。重点监察：是否超越权限决定企业改制或转让企业国有产权，是否擅自决定企业国有产权协议转让；是否弄虚作假、隐匿资产、提供虚假会计资料导致资产评估不实；是否按规定在产权交易机构中进行交易；是否暗箱操作，规避竞价转让；是否营私舞弊，与买方串通低价转让国有资产；是否以权谋私，利用改制和产权转让之机转移、侵占、侵吞国有资产；是否严重失职，违规操作，损害国家和企业利益以及职工群众的合法权益等。确保企业国有产权有序流转，资本结构规范调整。
（三）围绕加强成本管理开展效能监察，加强对企业基础管理的监督检查。要继续围绕物资设备采购业务开展效能监察，在提高采购招标业务的规范性、降低采购成本方面充分发挥效能监察的作用；继续围绕节能降耗、降本增效工作开展效能监察，在提高资源利用率、降低生产成本方面充分发挥效能监察的作用；继续围绕销售费用、应收账款、非生产性费用支出管理、存货管理、废旧物资设备处理等工作开展效能监察，在降低销售成本、提高资金回笼率、加快资金周转等方面充分发挥效能监察的作用。切实纠正管理粗放、资源浪费、效率低下等问题，促进企业完善业务流程，提高经济效益，改善管理效能。
三、工作要求
（一）继续加强组织领导，切实抓好效能监察工作。应对国际金融危机的挑战，确保国有企业持续稳定较快发展，最根本的措施是要不断推进企业管理上水平，狠抓最基本的生产环节管理、现场管理、财务管理、责任制管理等基础管理工作，提高执行力,夯实企业的发展基础。实践证明效能监察既是加强企业管理的有效方式，也是反腐倡廉的重要途径，各中央企业要把深入开展效能监察工作作为督促企业强化基础管理、提高执行力的重要手段，加强领导，统筹安排，保证本企业效能监察的组织落实、责任落实和工作落实。
（二）认真组织积极协调，精心抓好效能监察的选题立项工作。各级纪检监察机构要牢固树立效能监察工作服务、保障、促进企业发展的理念，认真搞好组织协调，紧密结合当前国内外的经济形势和企业生产经营的实际情况，广泛开展调查研究，充分利用内部监督资源，从生产经营管理的重点、领导关心的难点和职工群众关注的热点入手，精选细挑，切实做好效能监察的选题立项工作，统筹搞好全年工作安排。
（三）切实履行监督责任，把效能监察工作做实、做细、做好。要认真履行监督检查职责，强化责任意识，扎实细致地抓好过程监督。要加强事前监察，抓苗头，抓防范；要突出事中监察，抓隐患，抓纠正；要强化事后监察，抓查处，抓改进。要督促企业改进管理方式、优化业务流程、完善管理制度、健全管理机制，堵塞漏洞，强化内控机制建设，认真贯彻落实国资委出台的《中央企业资产损失责任追究暂行办法》等有关规定，建立健全责任追究机制。使效能监察工作真正做到：选准一个项目、查透一类问题、完善一套制度、规范一项管理，持续提高执行力，增强效能监察服务中心、促进建设、强化内控、保证发展的作用。
（四）不断努力探索创新，持续推动效能监察工作深入规范发展。要不断创新和规范效能监察工作的方式方法，逐步推广效能监察成效评价工作，加快构建效能监察工作的激励机制；要努力探索效能监察围绕企业改革发展进程选题立项的新问题，不断研究效能监察在融入管理、进入流程方面的新途径，改善操作方法；要改进业务培训方式，加大培训力度，提高效能监察干部的业务素质和能力；要深入搞好效能监察的理论研究和经验总结，加强信息沟通和交流，大力宣传和推广效能监察工作的成功经验和有效做法。
国资委纪委监察局将适时召开中央企业效能监察工作推进会。各中央企业纪检监察机构请于2009年11月底前将全年工作总结报送国资委纪委监察局执法监察室。
国务院国资委纪委
监察部驻国务院国资委监察局
2009年2月12日
