35.
a)
the computer system was operating properly or the fact of its not
operating properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic
record; or
b)
it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored by
a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the other
litigant party seeking to introduce it; or
c)
it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored in
the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a
party to the proceedings and who did not record or store it under
the control of the party seeking to introduce the record.
Presumption of Courts
When assessing the admissibility of evidence in accordance with this
Proclamation, the court may have regard to the procedure, standard or manner in
which a similar computer system is functioning.
36.
37.
Burden of proof
1/
Public prosecutor has the burden of proofing material facts regarding the
cases brought to the court in accordance with the standards stipulated in
law.
2/
Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-article (1) of this Article, upon
proof of basic facts of the case by the public prosecutor if the court
believes necessary to shift the burden of proofing to the accused, the court
may do so.
PART FIVE
INSTITUTIONS THAT FOLLOW UP CASES OF
COMPUTER CRIME
Public Prosecutor and Police Following up
Cases of Computer Crime
1/
A public prosecutor or investigative officer empowered to follows up
computer crime cases in accordance with the powers conferred by law
shall have the responsibility to enforce and cause to enforce the provisions
of this Proclamation.
2/
Public prosecution office and Police empowered in this Proclamation may
organize separate specialized task units when necessary to follow up
computer crimes
14