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 ...”.
出口饮料加工企业注册卫生规范
国家商检局
出口饮料加工企业注册卫生规范
1996年5月27日，国家进出口商品检验局
1 依据和适用范围
1．1本规范根据《出口食品厂、库卫生要求》制订。
1．2本规范适用于各种出口饮料（包括啤酒，以下同）加工企业的卫生注册。
2 卫生质量管理
2．1出口饮料加工企业应当建立保证出口食品卫生的质量体系，并制定体现和指导质量体系运行的质量手册。
2．2出口饮料加工企业的卫生质量体系应当包括：各机构、各类人员的工作职责、工作程序和工作要求；各场所、设施、工器具、原、辅料、加工过程及加工人员的卫生要求；工作记录和检查要求，以及自我纠偏要求。质量手册中应当体现的基本内容：
2．2．1卫生质量方针和卫生质量目标；
2．2．2组织机构及其职责、工作程序和工作要求；
2．2．3各级人员的工作职责、工作程序和工作要求；
2．2．4环境卫生的要求和控制；
2．2．5车间及设施卫生的要求和控制；
2．2．6原料、辅料卫生质量的要求和控制；
2．2．7加工人员卫生要求和控制；
2．2．8加工卫生质量的要求和控制；
2．2．9包装、储存、运输卫生的要求和控制；
2．2．10产品卫生检验的要求；
2．2．11文件和质量记录的控制；
2．2．12质量体系的内部审核。
3 厂区环境卫生
3．1出口饮料加工企业不得建在有碍食品卫生的区域，厂区周围应清洁卫生，无物理、化学、生物等污染源。
3．2厂区路面平整、清洁、不积水，主要通道铺设水泥等硬质路面，空地应绿化。
3．3厂区应按工艺要求布局，生产区与生活区应隔离。
3．4厂区内不得生产、存放有碍食品卫生的其他产品，不得有危害食品卫生的不良气味、有毒有害气体等。
3．5厂区有合理的给排水系统。废弃物应当远离车间集中存放并及时清理出厂。废弃物的排放与处理应符合国家环保的有关规定。
3．6厂区卫生间应有冲水、洗手、防蝇、防虫设施，墙壁、地面易清洗消毒，并保持清洁。
4 车间及设施卫生
4．1车间面积与加工能力相适应，工艺流程布局合理。排水畅通，通风良好。
4．2车间地面应由防滑、坚固、耐腐蚀的材料建筑，平坦、不积水，易于清洗消毒，保持清洁；车间与外界相连的排水、通风口应有防蝇、防虫、防鼠装置。
4．3车间内墙壁和天花板采用无毒、浅色、防水、防霉、不易脱落、便于清洗的材料修建，墙角、地角、柱角、顶角具有弧度。
4．4车间门窗由浅色、平滑、易清洗、不透水、耐腐蚀的坚固材料制作。加工过程中经常开闭的门窗应设有不生锈的纱门、纱窗或其它防虫、防蝇设施。设有内窗台的，其台面应向下斜约45度角。
4．5与车间相连接的卫生间有冲水装置、洗手消毒设施及换气装置，备有洗涤用品和不致交叉污染的干手用品，水龙头为非手动开关，门窗不直接开向车间，室内应保持清洁，通风良好。
4．6车间入口处设有鞋靴消毒池。车间入口处和车间内适当的位置设足够数量的洗手消毒设施，备有洗涤用品及消毒液和不致交叉污染的干手用品，水龙头为非手动开关。原料入口处必要时设车轮消毒池。
4．7车间供水、供气、供电满足生产所需。作业区照明设施的照度不低于220ＬＵＸ，检验区上方的照度不低于540ＬＵＸ，检瓶光源照度必须在1000ＬＵＸ以上。车间生产线上方的照明设施应装有防护罩。
5 原料、辅料及加工用水卫生
5．1原料、辅料必须符合有关卫生标准和规定，有出厂合格证，并经进厂卫生检验合格。
5．2果蔬类原料、辅料（包括啤酒花），必须采用新鲜或冷藏的，质味正常，无病虫害，无腐烂，无发霉变质。
5．3严禁使用进口国不允许使用的添加剂。
5．4原料、辅料进厂后应专库存放，经过检验合格的方可投入使用。
5．5饮料中使用的二氧化碳需经净化系统处理，且应符合国家关于液体二氧化碳标准的纯度。
5．6加工用水必须符合国家生活饮用水卫生标准。水质卫生检测每年不少于二次。
6 加工人员卫生
6．1从事食品加工、检验、包装及生产管理人员每年至少进行一次健康检查，必要时作临时健康检查；新进厂人员必须经过体检合格后方可上岗。建立员工健康档案。
6．2凡患有痢疾、伤寒、病毒性肝炎等消化道传染病（包括病原携带者），活动性肺结核，化脓性或者渗出性皮肤病以及其他有碍食品卫生的疾病者，必须调离食品加工、检验岗位。
6．3加工、检验人员必须保持个人清洁，进入车间必须穿戴工作服、帽及发网，并戴口罩，按规定洗手消毒，必要时应经风淋吸尘。工作时不得带饰物和手表，不得化妆。工作服应集中管理，定期清洗、消毒、收发。
6．4企业定期对员工进行加工卫生教育和培训，新进厂员工应经卫生考核合格后方可上岗。
7 加工卫生
7．1应确定加工过程的关键控制点，制定操作规程并得到连续有效的监控。对监控失效期间的产品应及时隔离处理，并采取有效的纠正措施。
7．2加工过程所有设备、操作台、工具、配料容器应定时清洗消毒。应定时对直接接触产品的器具和工人的手做细菌数检测。
7．3饮料容器在使用前应按规定程序彻底清洗，洗刷后经检验合格后方可投入使用。
7．4输送饮料的管道接头连接严密、光滑无锈蚀。
7．5调配、过滤、罐装等工艺过程应防止外来杂物污染。需经加热杀菌的饮料，应按工艺规程杀菌。
7．6检瓶工序应设置灯光透视检查台，配备足够数量的符合操作条件的检瓶人员。检瓶作业人员连续工作时间不应超过40分钟。
8 包装、运输、储存卫生
8．1包装物料必须符合卫生标准，应存放在干燥通风的专库内，标记清楚。
8．2成品库应设有垫衬物，使成品与地面距离至少15厘米，与墙壁距离至少60厘米。堆码高度合理。
8．3原料库和成品库的温湿度符合工艺要求，保温库和冷藏库应配有经校正的自动温度记录装置。库内保持清洁，定期消毒、除霜、除异味，有防霉、防鼠、防虫设施。
9 产品卫生检验
9．1企业必须设立与加工能力相适应的、独立的检验机构，能进行微生物、理化等项目的检验。配备相应的卫生检验人员，并按规定经培训、考核取得合格证方可上岗。
9．2检验机构必须具备检验工作所需要的检验设施和仪器设备，仪器设备必须按规定定期校准。
9．3检验机构必须对原料、辅料、半成品按标准取样检验，并出具检验报告。
9．4对检验不合格的应及时隔离，反馈信息，并应在加工过程及时采取纠偏措施。
9．5成品出厂前必须按生产批次进行检验，出具检验报告。检验报告应按规定程序签发。
9．6检验机构对产品质量应有否决权。
10 文件和质量记录
10．1应规定质量体系文件和有关资料的审批、修改和发布的控制程序。
10．2所有与质量体系有关的场所，都必须使用相同版本的有效文件。
10．3对与质量体系运行有关的活动应有完整的、规范的记录。
10．4应对质量记录的收集、编目、归档、保管和处理予以具体规定。所有记录至少应保存一年。
11 质量体系的内部审核
11．1企业应制定内部质量审核程序，至少每半年对质量体系运行情况进行一次内部审核。
11．2内部质量审核应由经培训合格的、与所审核的部分无直接责任的人员进行。
11．3对审核中发现的问题应及时采取有效的纠正措施。
