127. The representative of New Zealand said that situations were not as simple as described by the representative of the European Communities. He welcomed the clarifications given by the EC that prima facie evidence simply meant prima facie evidence, and asked therefore whether the reference in TN/C/W/52 to "proof to the contrary" could then be deleted from that proposal.
128. In response to the Chair's question of the consequences of a decision by the domestic authorities not to protect a notified name, he said that his assumption, from reading the TN/C/W/52 proposal, had always been that the presumption of protection could only be rebutted by proof to the contrary. This was a different standard altogether. It was important for New Zealand that its domestic decision makers had the flexibility to weigh evidence on a case-by-case basis and to make their decisions in accordance with their domestic system and all legal and other requirements. If the domestic authorities were able to weigh all various sources of evidence, including evidence from the register, then it would be important that their decisions would not be biased in any particular direction, i.e. without any presumption or predetermination operating. That meant that the register could be considered evidence, as could any other pieces of information.
