This article talks about witness and witness statements in arbitration proceedings. Facts are something that are supported by evidence. A lot of facts exist in oral form among people. How can such evidence be shown to prove the facts existing in such oral form?

本文讨论仲裁程序中的证人和证人证言。事实是由相关证据证明的东西。许多事实存在于人们之间的口头交往中。这些存在于人们口头交往中的事实如何证明呢？

In a recent arbitration case, a party requests for a witness to participate in the arbitration proceedings and appear before the arbitration tribunal to testify to the formation of an oral agreement during the course of contract performance.

在最近的一起仲裁案件中，一方当事人请求证人参加庭审，就合同履行中的一项口头协议出庭作证。

It was a dispute arising from an equity transfer agreement, whereby Party A is to transfer 40%of the equity interest of a target company to Party B. The dispute centers on whether Party B has performed the contractual obligation of payment for the equity interest. There was obviously no payment made yet by Party B, but there was an alleged ground for the delay in the payment. The witness was requested to appear to testify that an oral agreement was reached for deferred payment of USD X million by Party B who failed to make the payment, so Party A filed arbitration.

这是一起由股权转让协议引发的争议，其中，甲方要把目标公司40%的股权转让给乙方。争议集中在乙方是否履行了及时偿付股权的合同义务。显然，乙方尚未支付取得股权的对价，但辩称其有理由延迟支付。证人被请求出庭作证证明，双方已经达成由乙方支付X百万美元延迟支付金的口头协议。后因乙方未支付，因此甲方提起仲裁。

As a request was made by Party B, the Arbitration Tribunal transmitted the request to the applicant Party A for comments. Party A then also requested to present their witness to counter the submission of Party B’s witness statement regarding the oral agreement. The Tribunal allowed both parties to present their witnesses at a second oral hearing scheduled in the case. Finally, the Tribunal examined all evidence submitted by the parties and decided the case based on the evidence available in the proceedings.

由于乙方提出请求，仲裁庭将该请求转达给仲裁申请人甲方以征求意见。甲方也请求他们的证人出庭作证以反驳乙方证人就口头协议所提交的证人证言。仲裁庭在案件第二次开庭审理时允许双方证人出庭作证。最后，仲裁庭审查了双方提交的所有证据并根据仲裁程序中的现有证据对案件进行了裁定。

Witness Statement

证人证言     

Witness statement means someone’s individual account of the facts and events regarding relevant issues in a dispute. The account is what the witness tells the Tribunal. It could be very important factual information, it could also involve personal views of the witness. Therefore, it includes the credibility of the witness. The introduction of witnesses is to restore the facts (whole or part) of the case, and its importance is self-evident.

证人证言是指某人对所涉相关问题的事实或事件的陈述。其“所言”就是证人告诉仲裁庭的事项。它可能是非常重要的事实信息；也可能包含证人的个人观点；因此它包含了证人的可信度。引进证人是为了还原案件的（全部或部分）事实，其重要性不言而喻。

Rule-Based Submission of Witness Statement

以规则为基础的提交

In fact, any person capable of proving the relevant facts of the case may and should be introduced as a witness. Relevant provisions are shown in the CIETAC Evidence Guideline as follows:

事实上，任何能够证明案件事实的人，都可以也应当被作为证人出庭作证。中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会《证据指引》已经做出了相关的规定：

Article 8 Witnesses of Fact

8.1 Where a witness is presented by a party, such party shall identify the witness and the subject matter of his/her testimony to the tribunal in advance. Any person capable of proving the relevant facts of the case may appear as a witness, including a party’s employee, representative or agent. 

8.2 A witness shall submit a written statement prior to the hearing. The witness statement shall contain the name and address of the witness, his/her relationship with the parties, his/her background, a detailed description of the facts related to the dispute, the sources of the witness’ information, the date of the witness’ statement and the signature of the witness.”

 “第八条 事实证人 
    （一）当事人安排证人作证的，应事先向仲裁庭确定证人身份及其证明事项。任何能够证明案件事实的人，包括当事人的雇员、代表人和代理人，均可作为证人。 

    （二）证人应在庭审前提交其书面证言。书面证言应包括证人的姓名、地址、与各当事人间的关系以及个人背景介绍，对有关争议事实的详细说明及其信息来源，以及出具证言的日期和证人本人的签名。

It is up to the party to decide whether to present a witness to strengthen its position of proof of the case on the claimant side or the respondent side, depending on the merits of the parties. This is part of the party autonomy in arbitration.

由当事人根据各自对案情的陈述决定是否提出证人以加强其在申诉方或被申请方的案件证据地位。这是仲裁中当事人意思自治的一部分。

Evidence Builds up Merits but Not Falling into Procedural Matters

证据修筑案情部分但不等于程序事项

Evidence is presented to support the fact. The Arbitral Tribunal decides it as part of its substantive jurisdiction over the merits of the case. It is unwritten rule of thumb in international arbitration that the arbitral tribunal decides the merits of the case, with autonomy on its own. The court will not second-visit the merits of the case. Under the New York Convention as well as the UNCITRAL Model Law, the court will not deal with the merits of the case that the Tribunal has already heard upon parties’ request. The court will review the award from procedural due process and party autonomy perspective, and will generally leave the merits of the case to the arbitrators, unless the award goes against the arbitrability under the applicable national law or the public policy.

提交证据是为了证明事实。仲裁庭决定证据的可利用性，确定其为就案情享有的实质管辖权的一部分。在国际仲裁中，仲裁庭自行决定案情，这是不成文的经验法则。法院不会对案情做二次审理。根据《纽约公约》和《联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法》，法院不会再次审查仲裁庭根据双方当事人的要求已经审理过的案情。法院将从正当程序和当事人意思自治的角度对裁决进行审查，并且通常会将把案情的审理留给仲裁员，除非该裁决违反法律规定的可仲裁性或违反公共政策。

In Chinese practice regarding post award reviews by the court, evidence issue is not something considered as part of the arbitration procedure. In a recent case, a party challenged the enforceability of a CIETAC arbitration award, inter alia, on ground that the tribunal did not admit the evidence submitted beyond time, and hence does not comply with the arbitration rules.[1] The court opined that evidence issue is not something considered as procedural issue that would entitle the applicant the claim that the procedure was not conducted in accordance with the arbitration rules. This echoes with the general rule of thumb mentioned above that evidence falls into the merits of the case, which is part of the decision-making autonomy of the arbitral tribunal. Court does not re-visit the evidence of the case in a post award invalidation or non-enforcement actions against the arbitral award.

在我国的实践中，就法院对裁决后的审查而言，证据问题不是仲裁程序的一部分。在最近的一起案件中，一方当事人对中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（“贸仲”）所做裁决的可执行性提出了质疑。除其他事由外，其依据还包括，仲裁庭未采纳其逾期提交的证据，从而违反了仲裁规则。法院认为，证据问题不是程序问题，申请人无权据此主张该程序不是按照仲裁规则进行的。这与上文提到的“证据属于案情范畴”，因此属于仲裁庭自主决策部分的经验法则相呼应。法院在审理裁决作出后申请仲裁无效或不予执行的诉请时，不再对案件证据进行审查。

Methods of Submission of Evidence

证据的提交方法

Regarding submission of evidence, we may have the following observations:

关于证据提交，我们会观察到以下几点：

1.  Oral evidence submission is a voluntary matter of a party in respect of facts of a case. If it decides to use oral evidence by way of witness statement, it should do so prior to the hearing and request for witnesses to be present at the hearing for the Tribunal and other party’s examination;

口头证据提交是当事人就案件事实所做的自愿行为。如果当事人决定通过证人证言的方式使用口头证据，应该在开庭前申请证人出庭接受仲裁庭和另一方当事人的质证。

2.  If a party would like to examine a witness statement or a particular oral evidence, it may request the Tribunal to order the other party to produce such evidence at the hearing. This requested submission is also called request for disclosure, meaning that the other party needs to disclose certain evidence (including written documents);

如果一方当事人想对证人证言或特定口头证据进行质证，可以请求仲裁庭命令另一方当事人在庭前出示该证据。这一请求也被称作“披露请求”，意指另一方当事人需要披露某项证据（包括书面文件）；

3. The Tribunal can order disclosure of certain evidence from either of the parties. If a party refuses such disclosure, the Tribunal may make adverse inference from the fact of non-disclosure. If a party having the burden of proof fails to produce evidence within the specified period of time, or if the evidence produced is insufficient to discharge its burden of proof, it shall bear the adverse consequences of such failure.[2]

仲裁庭可以命令任何一方当事人对某些证据进行披露。如果当事人拒绝披露，仲裁庭可能会因不披露而做出不利推论。如果有举证责任的一方当事人没有在规定期限内举证，或者如果所提交的证据不足以履行其举证责任，该当事人将承担举证失败的不利后果。

Inquisitorial procedure may have all the witnesses be called and the Tribunal will directly question the witnesses. Adversarial procedure may have the parties decide who as witnesses to be called before the Tribunal and how such witnesses are to be examined subject to “examination-in-chief”(“direct examination” followed by the cross-examination and re-examination (“re-direct”).[3] There is a clear convergence of such different methods of procedure, resulting in a mixture of a party’s opportunity to question the witness of the other side and the Tribunal’s authority to question the witness to clarify certain factual issues.

究问式审讯程序可以召集所有证人，由仲裁庭直接对证人发问。对抗式程序可以让当事人决定在法庭上传唤他们的证人。这些证人将接受 “主问” (直接询问)然后进行交叉询问和重新询问（重新问）。这两种程序方法有明显汇合趋势，使一方当事人取得对另一方证人进行质询的机会，同时无损仲裁庭询问证人以澄清事实问题的权利。

Conclusion

结语

In conclusion, oral evidence may be presented at the hearing in arbitrations in China. The arbitral tribunal in the case may organize such presentation for the benefit of fact-findings in the case under applicable rules of procedure.

总之，在中国，口头证据可以在庭审时出示。仲裁庭可以根据现行的程序规则为查明事实而组织该证据的出示。

[1] See Supreme People’s Court “Reply to Application for Enforcement of a Foreign Related Arbitration Award Concerning EcomAgroindustrial Corp. Ltd.”(Feb. 6, 2013, Fourth Tribunal Min Si Ta Zi No. 2), The Collection of Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Rules (3^rd Edition), Commercial Law Volume (3), p. 2179.

参见最高人民法院“关于EcomAgroindustrial 有限公司涉外仲裁裁决申请执行的答复”（2013年2月6日，第四仲裁庭）民四它字第2号。《最高人民法院司法规则集锦》（第3版），商法卷（3），第2179页。

[2] Rule 32 (3), Beijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules (effective as of April 1, 2015). Also, see Arbitration Rules CIETAC (effective from January 1, 2015). For practice references, please see Xu Jie, International Commercial Arbitration Practice, Law Press, China, 2017, p. 321.

北京仲裁委员会仲裁规则（2015年4月1日生效）第32（3）条。同时，参见中国国际贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第41条（2015年1月1日生效）。有关实务请参见许杰“国际商事仲裁实务”，法律出版社，2017，第321页。

[3] Redfern and Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Thompson Sweet & Maxwell, 2004, p. 304. Redfern and Hunter 国际商事仲裁法律与实践，Thompson Sweet & Maxwell,2004年，第304页。