Gillett, Matthew and Karukaya, Yutaka and Marzotto, Mia (2026) The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s Treatment of Evidence: A Three-Phase History of Increasing Sophistication. In: Questions of Evidence in the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies' Individual Communications Procedure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 126-156. ISBN 9781009639231. Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009639231.008
Gillett, Matthew and Karukaya, Yutaka and Marzotto, Mia (2026) The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s Treatment of Evidence: A Three-Phase History of Increasing Sophistication. In: Questions of Evidence in the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies' Individual Communications Procedure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 126-156. ISBN 9781009639231. Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009639231.008
Gillett, Matthew and Karukaya, Yutaka and Marzotto, Mia (2026) The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s Treatment of Evidence: A Three-Phase History of Increasing Sophistication. In: Questions of Evidence in the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies' Individual Communications Procedure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 126-156. ISBN 9781009639231. Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009639231.008
Abstract
This chapter reviews the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s (WGAD) approach to issues of evidence and burdens of proof. It aims to provide a useful point of comparison with the UNTBs’ evidentiary procedures. The WGAD has developed an increasingly sophisticated approach to evidence, providing strong incentives for other decision-making bodies to take up its conclusions and procedures. In this chapter, the following arguments are substantiated: first, that the Working Group’s increasingly formalised and standardised approach to evidence reflects the maturing of the Working Group and its entrenchment in the ecosystem of human rights bodies; second, that its nuanced evidentiary approach can serve to enhance its credibility with states and claimants, in order to increase compliance rates; and third, its detailed approaches to evidentiary standards and challenges could provide precedents for UNTBs with individual claims mandates to follow a similar approach.
| Item Type: | Book Section |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Admissibility; arbitrary detention; balance of probabilities; burden of proof; reversed burden of proof; complaint procedure; credible information; evidence; shifting burden of proof; state; Working Group on Arbitrary Detention |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Arts and Humanities Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Essex Law School |
| SWORD Depositor: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
| Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
| Date Deposited: | 05 May 2026 12:19 |
| Last Modified: | 05 May 2026 12:19 |
| URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/43204 |
Available files
Filename: DISSECT Chapter Gillett et al - the-working-group-on-arbitrary-detentions-treatment-of-evidence.pdf