PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05T02051R000100150029-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2011
• Sequence Number: 29
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05TO2051 R000100150029-3
11
igs, proof is of
.itigation. The
affirmations be
akes an allega-
who denies it,
ecessary to cre-
ment has sub-
dicted, is suffi-
ase will not be
vidence by the
further eluci-
the German-
the claimant
)f the proceed-
[its who killed
mant as it was
the defendant
was no lenity
ies."'" In the
said that "[i]n
the Court can-
lrs to argue, that
cular time in the
is concerned; has
proceedings as a
his alleged Prima
L. Heald, Sept. 18,
s 126, 130 (1928-
(United States v.
;24; Johnson Case
406 (1868).
in refusing in the
Alin a la frontilrc,
ownership of the
-nerally impossible
not readily find that the lines adopted in these circumstances by
the 1935 Decree are not in accordance with the traditional Nor-
wegian System."'" Judge Read in his Dissenting Opinion in the
Asylum Case concluded that Colombia had "established consid-
erably more than a prima facie case," and added:
The question remains whether the third day of January has
been proved to have been a time of political disturbance of a
revolutionary character. This is a matter peculiarly within the
knowledge of the territorial State, and, in my opinion, Colombia
was not bound to establish more than a prima facie case. There
can be no doubt that Colombia has discharged the burden of
proof to this extent. On the other hand Peru has not furnished
a scintilla of evidence with regard to the political conditions ob-
taining in Lima at the beginning of January 1949-247
If the facts stated by the claimant Government are substantiated
only by partial proof, judgment in its favor has been held war-
ranted when the respondent Government could easily have re-
butted such statements, if untrue, by submitting evidence within
its control24" The United States Foreign Claims Settlement Com-
mission, in dealing with Cuban cases, followed the practice of
holding, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary," that prop-
erty shown to have been owned in Cuba by claimants had been
taken by Cuba pursuant to its nationalization decrees 24?
Cheng, in his treatise General Principles of Law as Applied by
International Courts and Tribunals, has stated the controlling
principle aptly:
In cases where proof of a fact presents extreme difficulty, a tri-
bunal may thus be satisfied with less conclusive proof, i.e., prima
facie evidence...: The inference in every case must, however,
be one which can reasonably be drawn. The situation, as es-
246 (1959] I.C.J. at 140. 247 (1950] I.C.J. at 326-27.
24s De Lemos Case (Great Britain v. Venezuela), 1903, RALSTON'S REPORT (1904),
302, 319; Brun Case (France v. Venezuela), French-Venezuelan Mixed. Claims Com-
mission, 1902, RALSTON'S REPORT (1906) 5, 25; Hatton Case (United States v. Mex-
ico), 1923, OPINIONS 6-so (1929) ; Janin v. Etat allemand (Franco-German Mixed
Arbitral Tribunal), i RECUEIL DES DECISIONS 774 (1922).
249 Floyd W. Auld, Dec. No. CU-2o, Nov. 23, 1966; Wallace and Catherine Tabor,
Dec. No. CU-14, Oct. 26, 1966; The Schwarzenbach Huber Co., Dec No. CU-21,
Jan. 13, 1967; Mary Pauline Seal, Dec. No. CU-125, Aug. 23, 1967, Ms COMM.
RECORDS.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05TO2051 R000100150029-3
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05TO2051 R000100150029-3
E
174 EVIDENCE BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
tablished by prima facie evidence, coupled with the adverse
presumption arising from the nonproduction of available counter.
evidence, is thus sufficient to create a moral conviction of the
truth of an allegation.250
Section 37. Judgment by Default. Giving judgment by default
against a State on account of its failure to appear before the tri-
bunal is a more serious matter than making an award to one party
on the basis of a prima facie case opposed only by meager evidence
on behalf of the other party. The possibility of such action ap-
pears to have been contemplated in arbitral agreements in but a
few instances 251 No recent instance of such a provision has been
found. The rules of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals appear in some
cases to have contemplated a judgment in the event of the failure
of a party to appear 252 The agreement of April 20, 1-910, between
Italy and Peru, submitting the Canevaro Case to arbitration, pro-
vided that "should said documents, proofs, or briefs not be pre-
sented within this period, an arbitral sentence shall be passed as if
the same did not exist." 251 In Article IV of the Treaty of Ghent,
December 24, 1814, between the United States and Great Britain,
submitting to arbitration the question of the boundary in the Bay
of Fundy, provision was made for a determination first by two
commissioners, and in the event of their disagreement, of the ref-
erence of the case to "some friendly sovereign or state" on the basis
of the reports of the commissioners or on the report of one com-
missioner together with the grounds upon which the other com-
missioner shall "have refused, declined or omitted to act...."
The Article concluded:
250 Supra, note 53, at 323, 325-
251 Convention for the Establishment of a Central American Court of justice,
art. XV, 2 MALLOY, TREATIES 2402; Prize Court Convention of 1907, art. 40, 2 Am.
J. INT'L L. Surf. 192 (1908).
252 See Franco-German Rules, art. 73, 1 RECUEIL DES DEcisiONS 54 (1922) ; Austria-
Belgian Rules, art. 70, id. at 18o. For cases invoking such rules, see Bumillier v. Etat
Allemand (Franco-German Tribunal), id., 3:38g, 390 (1923) ; Schreider v. Metenett
(Franco-German Tribunal) id. 2:334 (1923) ; Deutsch-Sudamerikansche Bank et
Office Allemand v. Vaquin et Schwertzer et Office Francais (Franco-German Tri-
bunal) id., 8:140 (1929).
253 PROTOCOLES DES SEANCES Er SENTENCE 6 (1912). For similar provisions, see
Alsop Case (United States v. Chile), 1909, 3 TREATIES, CONVENTIONS (Redmond)
2508; Yuille, Shortridge and Co. Case (Great Britain v. Portugal), 1861, sec. 3,
DE LAPRADELLE & POLms, 2 RECUEIL 89, 9o (1923).
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05TO2051 R000100150029-3
And
act,i
hasi
ferre
of su
deck
Maje
sider
and i
Article
accords t
favour of
Court, of
ever, bef
tion in a
is well ft
included
Court wi
intended
party citt
the proce
party whi
2541 MALI
in effect to
between th;
4493-94: ari
Commission
In case
Court "to
absent."