Submission Of Evidence Research Articles

The Effectiveness of Electronic Trials in the Jurisdiction of the District Court Semarapura Class II Based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 7 of 2022

Electronic trials, also known as e-trials, represent a significant innovation in the judicial process by integrating technology into court proceedings. These trials utilize digital platforms to manage and conduct various aspects of the trial process, including the submission of evidence, witness testimonies, and legal arguments. However, the adoption of electronic trials also presents challenges that must be carefully considered. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of electronic trial in the jurisdiction of the Semarapura District Court Class II based on Perma Number 7 of 2022, and the obstacles experienced in its implementation. The research contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges that courts may face in adopting such systems, thereby offering critical information that could inform future improvements and policy adjustments.

Дополнительные доказательства на стадии подготовки дела к судебному разбирательству

The article substantiates that it is the persons participating in the case who bear the responsibility of proving their claims and/or objections, however, the court, being responsible for the correct determination of the subject of proof in the case, uses its right and duty to indicate to them the need to provide additional evidence. Additional evidence should be recognized as presented by interested parties or requested by the court after accepting the application submitted to the court, with the help of which the sufficiency of evidentiary material necessary for the consideration and resolution of the case is achieved. Additional evidence presented by persons participating in the case, or requested by the court at their request, gradually replenishes the evidence base available in the case. It is justified to agree with the position of the higher courts that additional evidence should be accepted not only at the stage of preparing the case for trial, but also at later stages of the proceedings, and as a procedural sanction for the untimely submission of evidence, it is necessary to apply the distribution of legal costs. It makes no sense to impose sanctions in the form of a ban on the litigants to present additional evidence in a situation where the court initially incorrectly determined the subject of proof.

Tobacco Industry Engagement in the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee E-cigarettes Inquiry

Background: A now extensive literature has documented political strategies of healthharming industries (HHIs), but little is known about their engagement with Parliamentary select committees. Recent investments by trans-national tobacco corporations (TTCs) in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has raised concerns that industry actors may be using these to re-engage policymakers in ways precluded by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 5.3. Methods: This article examines tobacco industry engagement with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) inquiry into electronic cigarettes. It draws on a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with committee members and support staff (n=4) triangulated against written and oral evidence submissions. Results: TTCs featured prominently in the STC inquiry via written and oral submissions. Opportunities existed for industry engagement, and potential influence, at each stage of the process. There was an absence of oral testimony from those sceptical about the potential health benefits of ENDS. The governance mechanisms in place for select committees appear inadequate for protecting committee work from industry influence. As it relates to TTCs, this has implications for the UK’s commitments under FCTC Article 5.3, yet understanding of the FCTC and the requirements of Article 5.3 compliance within the committee were limited. Conclusion: The governance of select committees requires urgent reform in order to balance norms of openness and participation with the need to protect their work from power of economic actors with conflicts of interest. This is particularly the case in relation to TTCs and adherence to FCTC Article 5.3. These findings are of relevance to other select committees whose work affects the interests of HHIs. Further research is needed on other committees and sectors.

Elements of evidence in civil jurisdiction and notary proceedings

This article covers research in the comparative aspect of the process of procuring evidence in civil proceedings and notarial proceedings, specific features of the elements of evidence in the notarial process, the peculiarities of the rules for determining the factual material to be established when a specific notarial act is performed, and the submission of evidence to support them. The essence of the proceduralists’ scientific discussion regarding the definition of the concept of evidence, its elements and subjects, as well as the obligations of evidence are covered. On the basis of the analysis of the positions of the authors expressed in the science of civil procedural law, which substantiate the opposite approaches to the mentioned issues, it is determined that the basis of this scientific discussion is the disagreement of views on the court as a subject of evidence. It is recognized that filling the terms “evidence” and “proving” with different meanings is not convincing, is not based on current procedural legislation and does not meet the interests of law enforcement practice. The article proves that the exclusion of the court from the subjects of evidence (even in relation to such an element as the collection of said evidence) contradicts the rules of evidence provision established in the current civil procedural legislation. It is concluded that such elements of evidence as indication of facts, determination of evidence, collection of evidence, research of evidence, evaluation of evidence are characteristic of civil proceedings. At the same time, it is advisable to determine the composition of subjects not for the entire procuring evidence process as a whole, but separately for each of the specified elements. For example, the court is not the subject of presenting evidence, but is the subject of research and evaluation of evidence. Evidence in a notarial process is considered as a procedural activity of notarial bodies and interested subjects of notarial proceedings, aimed at establishing legal facts necessary for the issuance of a legal and substantiated notarial act. The article substantiates that the establishment of the presence or absence of certain legal facts, with which the possibility of applying the relevant norm is connected, is carried out only within the scope of the procuring evidence process, according to special rules that provide for the rights and obligations of the subjects of notarial proceedings regarding submission, research and evaluation evidence, and have significant differences from similar rules in civil proceedings due to the undisputed nature of notarial activity.

Virtual Courts: A Pathway towards the Right to Access Justice in India

As we know in virtual courts, various procedures such as electronic filing of plaints and documents, online payment of court fees, submission of digital evidence, and conducting arguments via video conferencing are carried out in real-time, necessitating the presence or availability of all participants during hearings. Conversely, online courts feature asynchronous hearings, allowing participants to present evidence and arguments without the requirement of synchronous presence. To provide legal legitimacy to virtual courts and video conferencing, the Supreme Court issued an order on April 6, 2020, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. This directive extended to all High Courts, granting them the authority to adopt technological solutions in accordance with their respective needs and the evolving pandemic circumstances across different states. Model rules were formulated and circulated among all High Courts, while District or lower courts were instructed to adhere to rules prescribed by their overseeing High Courts. In this research paper, virtual courts and their role in ensuring proper access to justice in the wake of post-pandemic developments has been analysed, evaluated and assessed accordingly. Moreover with respect to the efficacy of virtual courts as well as the problems encountered in the administration of justice digitally, the implications of these developments have also been explored with a view towards the future of these institutions in our country.

Striving for affordable medicine: Lessons in price negotiation learned from the United Kingdom.

In August 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were granted unprecedented power to negotiate the price of some pharmaceuticals covered under Medicare Part D of the Inflation Reduction Act. Price negotiation was previously banned by Medicare Part D legislation but is not a new idea globally. For decades, nations like the United Kingdom have price set or negotiated the cost of medicine with manufacturers, fine-tuning their methodologies, with mixed success. The United States can learn from other countries' work to develop a methodology capable of achieving increased affordability and patient access to medicine. Secretary Xavier Becerra should consider the United Kingdom's policy approach, which facilitates early and transparent collaboration with key stakeholders like patient groups and industry but limits flexibility in evidence submission, to help the United States minimize unintended damage to patient access to new medicines and achieve the Inflation Reduction Act's goals.

Privacy-preserving Crime Reporting and Rewarding in the Presence of Active Insider and Outsider Adversaries

Security agencies collect evidence from whistleblowers to take action against criminals. Moreover, security agencies provide rewards to encourage whistleblowers for their services. However, sometimes, security agencies may have individuals who are not trustworthy. Such insider adversaries disclose the identities of whistleblowers and modify the order of evidence submission to provide rewards to specific whistleblowers. In this paper, we present the crime-reporting and rewarding mechanism to protect the identities of whistleblowers and reward genuine and first whistleblowers. The proposed mechanism not only protects in the presence of outsider adversaries but also in the presence of active insider adversaries. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed mechanism is reliable in identifying and rewarding genuine and first whistleblowers. We use the public ledger to timestamp and record submissions and smart contracts to automatically transfer rewards to genuine and first whistleblowers. To show the feasibility, we implemented the proposed mechanism. Security and performance analysis show that the proposed mechanism is secure against active insider and outsider adversaries, reliable, and transparent.

Striving for Affordable Medicine: Lessons in Price Negotiation Learned from the United Kingdom.

In August 2022, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) were granted unprecedented power to negotiate the price of some pharmaceuticals covered under Medicare Part D of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Price negotiation was previously banned by Medicare Part D legislation but is not a new idea globally. For decades, nations like the United Kingdom (UK) have price set or negotiated the cost of medicine with manufacturers, fine tuning their methodologies, with mixed success. The United States (US) can learn from other countries' work to develop a methodology capable of achieving increased affordability and patient access to medicine. Secretary Xavier Becerra should consider the UK's policy approach, which facilitates early and transparent collaboration with key stakeholders like patient groups and industry but limits flexibility in evidence submission, to help the US minimize unintended damage to patient access to new medicines and achieve the IRA's goals.

Електронні докази в цивільному судочинстві: правова характеристика та особливості

Abstract. This article is dedicated to the study of issues related to the use of electronic evidence in civil litigation. Within the framework of the article, an analysis of recent scientific publications on the use of electronic evidence is conducted. The work was performed on the basis of general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge. The general concept and principles of using electronic evidence in civil proceedings, their characteristics, and peculiarities are outlined. A list of advantages regarding the use of electronic evidence is provided. Special attention is given to the description of the procedure for submitting electronic evidence to the court. The article examines changes and trends in the use of electronic evidence in the modern context of integration and digitization of society, and analyzes progress in the field of information technology. Problems at the legislative level concerning the submission of both original electronic evidence and their copies to the court are analyzed. Issues related to the procedure and peculiarities of examining electronic evidence, as well as their evaluation by the court, are identified. Specifically, among the problems identified in the article are the insufficient regulatory framework for certifying electronic copies of electronic evidence, the imperfect definition of the concepts of «original electronic evidence» and «copy of electronic evidence» in legislation, the instability of electronic information, the absence of physical form and perception only through special technical devices, the possibility of theft, damage, and tampering, and the determination of their authenticity and admissibility. Based on the conducted research, the conclusion is drawn that the question of the use of electronic evidence requires urgent resolution, and the legislator should promptly eliminate existing contradictions by making appropriate amendments to the current procedural legislation of our country. Moreover, it is advisable to more precisely define the concept of «electronic evidence» and the specifics of their submission at the legislative level.

HTA158 Exploring Efficiency of Living Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Tool for Submissions of Clinical Evidence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) by Combining Interventional and Real-World Evidence (RWE)

HTA158 Exploring Efficiency of Living Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Tool for Submissions of Clinical Evidence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) by Combining Interventional and Real-World Evidence (RWE)

Governance of the business environment based on food safety disputes: empirical analysis based on the case of “Cordyceps sinensis”

IntroductionThe use of the fungus Cordyceps sinensis (CS), which has a long history of use in China for its tonic properties, has sparked controversy based on the risk from high arsenic levels in CS.MethodsThis study collected all 24 online dispute cases related to CS from the China Legal Documents Network. Excel software was applied to fit the distribution of the sample data and analyze the trend of trial results of CS disputes and the tendency of professional claims trials. The analysis covers the trend of trial results of contract dispute cases involving CS products (CDCCS), and the tendency of the results of CDCCS, using correlation to analyze the factors influencing the results. We analyzed trial tendencies in CDCCS by the methods of complex network analysis (Gephi software) to explore each factor’s effect on the trial outcome of in these claims cases and to predict the trial outcomes of new cases. Simultaneously use KNN to train and predict CS cases.ResultsThe peak number of trial cases was in 2018, and there has been a gradual increase in the rate of losing claims on the claimant. Correlation analysis was used to obtain that the likelihood of the defendant winning a claim is positively correlated with DR, FSS, IDP, and KSP, and negatively correlated with the adoption of JIFDD (3), JIFDD (15), and APL. Gephi software was used to conduct a complex network analysis of the factors influencing the tendency of trial results in CS disputes, showing that noncompliance with FSS, existence of KSP, and submission of IDP evidence by the buyer are the direct factors influencing the seller’s defeat. The seller’s “failure to perform DR” is the key factor in the seller’s defeat in cases. On this basis a probability function is developed to predict a trial win rate of 0.7803 for freshman cases, classifier to predict the remaining four samples and new cases, and get the prediction accuracy is 0.8, 95% CI: (0.2836, 0.9949), and the latter was higher than the former.DiscussionIt is concluded that the attribute of CS products is a scientific issue, the jurisdiction of CS disputes is confusing and needs to be clarified, and the application of the provisions in judicial trials is cannot adapt to the current environment and needs to be resolved. This study advocates that the government design policy from the top and establish a study on the boundary between administrative and judicial functions to provide a theoretical guarantee to circumvent lazy administration and unscientific law enforcement. The government can provide a legal and regulatory system to improve food quality and regulate management.

Keabsahan Proses Pembuktian Perkara Pidana Dalam Persidangan Yang Bersifat Online

Introduction: Writing with the title: "The Validity of the Process of Proving Criminal Cases in Online Trials", has a problem formulation whether the process of proving criminal cases carried out online is accepted according to the Criminal Procedure Code and how to prove criminal cases ideally.Purposes of the Research: This writing is intended to analyze and explain the process of proving criminal cases in online courts and ideally proving criminal cases.Methods of the Research: This writing uses a normative juridical research method, the legal materials used are secondary legal materials obtained through library research on primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Legal materials are discussed with a statutory approach, a concept approach and a case approach.Results of the Research: That in principle the process of proving criminal cases conducted online can be accepted according to the Criminal Procedure Code as an effort to fill the legal vacuum in the case of "certain circumstances" which are determined as emergencies or other circumstances. Whereas a criminal case evidence is said to be ideal, both in direct/normal trial and electronic/online trial, if it has fulfilled the evidentiary parameters, namely: implementation of proof principles/theory; evidence; submission of evidence; burden of proof; power of proof; and minimal evidence.

Provision of evidence in civil proceedings: a historical and legal outline of the development of legislation

In the work, research was carried out in the historical and legal context of the institution of securing evidence in civil proceedings, the origins of the modern system of normative provisions on securing evidence, the main stages of the development of civil procedural legislation in this part were revealed. Modern legislative approaches to the legal regulation of procedures for providing evidence in civil proceedings and problematic aspects of law enforcement are analyzed. In the 2017 edition, the Civil Code of Ukraine established certain novelties in the legal regulation of the procedures for securing a claim. Thus, the court, at the request of a party to the case or a person who may acquire the status of a plaintiff , must provide evidence if there is reason to assume that the means of proof may be lost or the collection or submission of relevant evidence will later become impossible or difficult. Ways of securing evidence by the court are questioning of witnesses, appointment of expertise, demand and (or) review of evidence, including according to their location, prohibition to take certain actions regarding the evidence and obligation to take certain actions regarding the evidence. In necessary cases, the court may apply other methods of securing evidence determined by the court. In the new civil procedural legislation, the list of methods of providing evidencehas been expanded, the terms for filing a lawsuit in the case of submitting anapplication for providing evidence before the opening of proceedings in the case have been extended, the procedure for providing evidence when transferring a case to an arbitration court and international commercial arbitration, detailed requirements for form and content have been clarified applications for the provision of evidence. Key words: provision of evidence, proof, means of proof, civil proceedings, court procedures

Abuse of Procedural Rights in Submission and Disclosure of Evidence in an Arbitration Procedure

Abuse of Procedural Rights in Submission and Disclosure of Evidence in an Arbitration Procedure

The End of the Rhetorical Line? The ‘Partygate’ Investigation into former UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson

AbstractIn dramatic and unprecedented circumstances, a former British Prime Minister has been investigated by the House of Commons Privileges Committee for breaking laws set by his own government by socialising and partying whilst the rest of the country toiled during the Covid lockdowns. The lockdown laws were clear, saying we ‘must stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives’. Socialising of any kind was outlawed, with high fines imposed. Yet, for Boris Johnson, it was unclear whether such restrictions applied to his administration. After the submission of evidence from witnesses in Number Ten and testimony from the defendant himself, a ground‐breaking verdict that will reverberate around Westminster and the Conservative Party for months and years to come was delivered—namely, that Boris Johnson knowingly misled Parliament on multiple occasions about the social activities and that he should be held in contempt of Parliament. The fallout of this verdict will cause division within the Conservative Party and will remind voters of a lengthy period most would rather forget. This article reviews the circumstances of the committee proceedings, the evidence presented, the outcome and how this impacts negatively upon trust in politics which, prior to these proceedings, was already at a low point.

Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pencipta Atau Pemegang Hak Cipta Yang Ciptaannya Digunakan Sebagai Ringtone

Introduction: Law Number 18 of 2014 is one of the products of the law which regulates the authority and rights of creators for their creations. Specifically for music copyrights or hits related to the illegal sale of ringtones or ringtones that use songs belonging to the creators. This is of course detrimental to the creator and is a violation of copyright.Purposes of the Research: The aim is to balance the rights and obligations between creators or copyright holders and those who want to use them for commercial purposes.Methods of the Research: This writing uses a normative juridical research method, the legal materials used are secondary legal materials obtained through library research on primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Legal materials are discussed with a statutory approach, a concept approach and a case approach.Results of the Research: That in principle the process of proving criminal cases conducted online can be accepted according to the Criminal Procedure Code as an effort to fill the legal vacuum in the case of "certain circumstances" which are determined as emergencies or other circumstances. Whereas a criminal case evidence is said to be ideal, both in direct/normal trial and electronic/online trial, if it has fulfilled the evidentiary parameters, namely: implementation of proof principles/theory; evidence; submission of evidence; burden of proof; power of proof; and minimal evidence.

A new technology of evidence research is necessary in criminal proceedings

The purpose of the research, part of the results of which is presented in this article, was an attempt to formulate and describe the method of judicial evidence, the method of disclosing before the court the content and significance of the evidence collected by the parties, to develop and propose rules for conducting individual legal actions, to link them into a single process (technology) forensic research. The procedure for examining evidence is not only the sequence of relevant actions, but also court-approved regulations for working with separate evidence, according to which the parties, when providing documentary evidence, must not only name the documents that they use to support their positions, but also disclose their content and report on the circumstances. in support of which they are submitted, so that it is clear both to the court and to any outside, reasonable and impartial observer. When presenting evidence, the prosecutor and the lawyer must demonstrate to the court both the propriety and admissibility of individual sources of factual data, as well as the logical connections between them, proving certain circumstances, criticizing the evidence of the procedural opponent, emphasizing the shortcomings of others and the advantages of their own evidence. That is, the content of the evidence must be revealed at the court hearing by the party that submits it to the judicial investigation, and not by the court, which should be exempted from the obligation to declare the documents provided by the parties. At the same time, the submission of evidence is not limited to providing the court with written, electronic documents or physical evidence. The justification by the parties of the necessity of questioning witnesses, experts, ensuring the arrival of these persons to the court and their questioning before the court is also the submission of evidence – factual data, information about which the interrogated have. It is proposed to borrow the experience of the courts of common law countries, where material evidence is usually submitted through witnesses who can testify to its origin. Key words: Criminal proceedings, evidencing, technology of court research.

The Implementation of Good Governance Concept In Letter Evidence Submission Regulation For E-Litigation Cases

The modernisation of public institutions aims to address issues of openness and community accountability of public institutions as well as making public services more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the community. The judiciary also complies with the community's requests that it implement the fundamentals of sound government. The 2010–2035 Judicial Reform Blueprint, which stresses using information technology to restructure and supports this. E-Litigation is a byproduct of Indonesia's judicial reforms. SK KMA RI Number 129/KMA/SK/VIII/2019 and PERMA 1 of 2019 provide as the legal foundation for electronic litigation. The principles outlined in the idea of good governance in terms of legal philosophy must be followed in the implementation of e-Litigation. This is in accordance with the principles of good governance, which deal with regulations pertaining to the validity of evidence submitted in e-Litigation of civil cases, that are responsive, effective, and efficient at the implementation stage. This research intends to examine the concepts of good governance, the legal foundation for e-Litigation in Indonesia, and the application of responsive, effective, and efficient principles to control the admissibility of documentary evidence in e-Litigation in civil cases. By taking a statutory method, this study adopts a normative approach to law. According to the study's findings, Indonesia's regulations on the admissibility of evidence in civil e-Litigation cases obstruct the fulfillment of responsive, effective, and efficient e-Litigation implementation principles. As a result, the legal framework of the rule governing the admissibility of evidence in Indonesian civil e-Litigation has to be modified to comply with good governance principles.

Pegcetacoplan for Treating Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Apellis Pharmaceuticals/Sobi to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab and pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) in adults whose anaemia is uncontrolled after treatment with a C5 inhibitor. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The company pursued a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Fast Track Appraisal (FTA). This was a form of STA processed in a shorter time frame and designed for technologies with company base-case ICER < £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and most plausible ICER < £20,000 per QALY gained. This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission, and the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The company presented clinical evidence from the PEGASUS trial that assessed the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. At Week 16, patients in the pegcetacoplan arm had statistically significantly greater change from baseline in haemoglobin levels and a higher rate of transfusion avoidance than patients in the eculizumab arm. Using the PEGASUS trial and Study 302 data (a non-inferiority trial that assessed ravulizumab versus eculizumab), the company conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to indirectly estimate the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab. The company identified key differences between trial designs and populations that could not be adjusted for using anchored MAIC methods. The company and ERG agreed that the anchored MAIC results were not robust and should not inform decision making. In the absence of robust indirect estimates, the company assumed that ravulizumab had equivalent efficacy to eculizumab in the PEGASUS trial population. Results from the company base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treatment with pegcetacoplan dominated eculizumab and ravulizumab. The ERG considered that the long-term effectiveness of pegcetacoplan was uncertain and ran a scenario assuming that after 1 year the efficacy of pegcetacoplan would be the same as eculizumab; treatment with pegcetacoplan continued to dominate eculizumab and ravulizumab. The AC noted that treatment with pegcetacoplan had lower total costs than treatment with eculizumab or ravulizumab because it is self-administered and reduces the need for blood transfusions. If the assumption that ravulizumab has equivalent efficacy to eculizumab does not hold, then this will affect the estimate of the cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab; however, the AC was satisfied that the assumption was reasonable. The AC recommended pegcetacoplan as an option for the treatment of PNH in adults who have uncontrolled anaemia despite treatment with a stable dose of a C5 inhibitor for ≥ 3 months. Pegcetacoplan was the first technology recommended by NICE via the low ICER FTA process.

E-Court Paradigm Shift: Problems of Legitimacy Mechanisms of Electronic Evidence in State Administrative Procedure Law

The existence of electronic information electronic documents has been recognized as valid evidence and is a continuation of the evidence in the applicable Procedural Law in Indonesia, that electronic information and/or electronic documents use electronic systems with the provisions of Law Number 19 of 2016 which amends Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning ITE. The writing focuses on highlighting two legal issues related to the submission of electronic evidence in the e-court evidentiary system, namely regarding the problems faced in efforts to legitimize electronic evidence in proving a case and a proportional mechanism facing the problem of the legitimacy of electronic evidence The complete discussion of electronic courts which includes the evidentiary stage has not taken place due to various obstacles, among others, regulation, availability of supporting facilities and human resources (HR). The study of this legal issue is important in order to optimize the work of electronic justice, so that the modernization of the judicial system is carried out more quickly with an IT approach, if only to realize the vision of the Supreme Court and ensure better access to justice in the future. As a result of this study, it was concluded that the validation process of electronic evidence in electronic evidence is an important stage that cannot be excluded in determining the validity of electronic evidence and the importance of strict digital judicial procedures in the process of validating electronic evidence.