170. The first and third new allegations are in sharp contrast to what the Respondent States narrates to be the practice following the amendments to the Civil Status Act. The Respondent State avers that administrative authorities have complied with the amendments (permitting issuance of documents with the religion column left blank) without further recourse to court proceedings. Consequent upon this factual contradiction between the parties, a factual issue arises for determination. 171. Factual issues are resolved by evidence. The burden to produce evidence in support of an alleged fact lies with the party asserting the fact, as a general principle. This principle is not absolute. As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo (2010) AHRLR 3 (ICJ 2010), the determination of the burden of proof is in reality dependent on the subject-matter and the nature of each dispute…: it varies according to type of facts which it is necessary to establish for the purpose of the decision of the case.” In particular, where, as in these proceedings, it is alleged that a person has not been afforded, by a public authority, certain procedural guarantees to which he was entitled, it cannot as a general rule be demanded of the applicant that it prove the negative fact which it is asserting. A public authority is generally able to demonstrate that it has followed the appropriate procedures and applied the guarantees required by law — if such was the case — by producing documentary evidence of the actions that were carried out. However, it cannot be inferred in every case where the respondent is unable to prove the performance of a procedural obligation that it has disregarded it: that depends to a large extent on the precise nature of the obligation in question; some obligations normally imply that written documents are drawn up, while others do not. The time which has elapsed since the events must also be taken into account.41 172. It is necessary to establish, as a matter of fact, the first and third newly alleged facts proffered by the Complainants in their rejoinder for purposes of deciding on the claim of discrimination based on those facts. In that regard, the Complainants do not indicated that the actual victims in the present case were required to produce documents evidencing that their parents were listed as Bahá’í, or indeed that they were refused facilitation to make powers of attorney. The Complainants simply assert it as a prevailing occurrence. One would expect that for them to assert as much, they must have come across some Bahá’í adherents who had those experiences, who could have Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo (2010) AHRLR 3 (ICJ 2010), para. 54-55. See similar statement of the HRC in Communication 1085/2002 - Louisa Bousroual (on behalf of Salah Saker) v Algeria (2006) HRC para. 9.4 41 35