Judicial principles and studies
Opponent's Computer Outputs under Article 13(3)(d): Meaning
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opponent as ordinarily probative and places on that opponent the burden to show they were not produced or authenticated by them. The rule excludes outputs a party prepared to use as its own evidence.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opposing party as carrying ordinary probative weight and places on that party the burden to demonstrate that those outputs were not extracted, authenticated, signed, or produced by someone on their instruction.
Summary
The provision does not apply to computer outputs a party prepared as evidence for itself; such self-produced outputs are not considered valid basis for a judgment, in line with the general rule that a party may not fabricate evidence. For example, a fingerprint disclosure issued by the defendant cannot be relied on against the plaintiff because it did not originate from the plaintiff. Note: This is an educational summary, not judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
In practice, courts will treat outputs attributed to the opponent as presumptively probative unless the opponent proves otherwise, whereas outputs prepared by a party to serve its own case cannot serve as a basis for a judgment.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.