Focusing on evidentiary approaches, this article examines the burdens and standards of proof applied at United Nations quasi-judicial international human rights bodies. These bodies have dual-faceted mandates, combining legal and human rights traditions and imperatives. However, they diverge in their approach to evidence. This article argues that the prima facie approach developed over the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's 30 years of jurisprudence provides an appropriately flexible and conceptually coherent means of accommodating combined human rights and the judicial mandates. Nonetheless, this approach requires lexiconic and taxonomical tightening, and clarification of its standard of proof. Comparing the approaches taken by other quasi-judicial bodies, this article builds the impetus towards inter-institutional consistency. It reviews proposals such as wholesale reversal of the burden of proof onto Governments. It highlights the drawbacks of that unilateral type of burden and the risks that it would introduce further uncertainty for parties to proceedings, may cause onerous difficulties for claimants, and would potentially flood the human rights institutions with unsubstantiated claims.

中文翻译：

---

协调准司法人权机构的双重任务：任意拘留问题工作组的初步证据方法

本文重点关注证据方法，探讨了联合国准司法国际人权机构适用的举证责任和标准。这些机构具有双重任务，结合了法律和人权传统及要求。然而，他们在获取证据的方法上存在分歧。本文认为，任意拘留问题工作组在 30 年的判例中制定的初步方法提供了一种适当灵活且概念上一致的方法，以兼顾人权和司法任务。尽管如此，这种方法需要加强词汇和分类，并澄清其证明标准。通过比较其他准司法机构所采取的方法，本文推动了机构间的一致性。它审查了诸如全面扭转政府举证责任等提案。它强调了这种单方面负担的弊端，以及它可能会给诉讼各方带来进一步的不确定性，可能给索赔人带来沉重的困难，并可能让人权机构充斥着未经证实的索赔。