72. The representative of Brazil said that he was perplexed by the continuous calls for manifestation of support from all the proponents of TN/C/W/52. As in every other negotiating group in the WTO, if a proposal had been submitted in writing by a number of delegations, and if those delegations attended a meeting, it could be assumed that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, there was a prima facie evidence that it was supported by those who had signed that proposal. It seemed purposeless to keep asking whether or not every particular item of TN/C/W/52 had been agreed to by each and every co-sponsor.
73. He further said that, as always in the WTO, discussions were a mixture of technical and political issues. This was the case for terms such as "proof", "evidence" or "burden". As was clearly stated in the EC's replies, "proof" for example would take the form that was provided under domestic law. Terms like that one would very often be translated with the same words, as would be the case in Portuguese. However, the concept of and requirements for "proof" could be different depending on whether it was an administrative, an intellectual property or a criminal issue. He asked whether this negotiating group really wanted to negotiate a common definition of "proof", or would rather delegate the matter, as was currently the case, to domestic procedures, statutory law and customary law. He found some contradiction among those who upheld the principle of territoriality - which Brazil also did – but who, at the same time, wanted a full agreement among all Members on a unique concept, applicable to all possible circumstances. What should be done would be to go beyond that phase and actually engage in a negotiation of a solution acceptable to all.
74. He said that he felt encouraged by the statement made by the delegation of Australia that his authorities would "take into account" the information on the register. This would be a quite substantial point. He therefore thought that it should not be impossible for all Members to get to a language which would translate the matter into an obligation acceptable to all.
75. He also felt encouraged by those delegations that had expressed concerns about the administrative burdens that would follow from the implementation of the system. He recalled that Brazil was concerned with that too and this should also be adequately taken into account in devising the register. He pointed out that this question was not limited to the register and that the issue of administrative burdens was a horizontal one in the TRIPS area. The sensitivity shown by some delegations was a positive sign.
76. Finally, he said that this negotiation was a very important part of an even greater political issue, which was the updating of the TRIPS Agreement in a manner that would ensure its continued relevance in the future. His delegation would therefore be looking forward to the Director-General's consultations the following week on the other two TRIPS issues, which were essential to Brazil.
