The standard of proof typically used by NHRIs in arriving at a decision is “the balance of probabilities” rather than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, which typically applies to criminal courts. The “balance of probabilities” is a lower standard and simply means that the bulk of the evidence shows that the allegation “probably” is or is not founded. The investigator should review the evidence to determine its completeness, probative value and relevance, as well as the credibility of the witnesses. If necessary, a second interview may be held to obtain further clarification (although this should be the exception). The investigator will also have to determine the degree to which the testimony corroborates other evidence and whether the testimony suggests that other evidence should be sought. Assessing the value of evidence. Physical evidence is said to be the best form of evidence (of the highest probative value) because it is the most objective and the least likely to require interpretation. Its value may be lessened if care is not taken to ensure that it can be shown that it was not tampered with. This is called ensuring the chain of possession. Official documents that are prepared in the normal course of business at or near the time of the incident will have high probative value. For example, an official police report made immediately after an incident would be considered more valuable than a report made several days later and after an investigation has been launched or a private note made in a police officer’s diary. Official records can more easily be authenticated and accurately dated. Other factors to consider are whether the document is original or has been notarized or otherwise authenticated. Such documents are of more value than mere copies. Assessing the value of documentary evidence also requires assessing the document itself and assessing it against all other types of evidence. Does the document show what the individual claims it shows? Is it directly relevant to the case? Testimonial evidence, though widely used, has less probative value. It can be influenced by human perception, motives and error. Hearsay (testimonial evidence that describes something that someone else said happened) is a form of testimonial evidence, even if its probative value is more limited. The credibility (or truthfulness) of testimonial evidence can be influenced by a number of factors. Both sides to a complaint have an interest in the outcome and this might taint their perception of events. Similarly, friendship or kinship may generate loyalty to one or the other party to a complaint and a resultant bias in testimony. There may be a real or perceived financial or other benefit associated with supporting one party or another. Similarly, there may be a real or perceived fear of saying something that may be seen as damaging to a person with power or authority, or just perhaps a sense of apathy as to the event or the need to get involved. The existence of any of these factors may not negate the testimony, but the investigator should be aware of them. The reliability (or accuracy) of testimony can also be affected by several factors. The physical condition of the person at the time is relevant, as are the conditions under which observations were made. Does the person wear glasses, and if so was he or she wearing them at the time of the incident? Were there any obstructions to seeing or hearing what happened? What was the visibility, the distance? Was the person intoxicated or drowsy, etc.? These factors must be taken into account by the investigator. Assessing the credibility and relevance of testimony involves assessing the individual statement and its relationship to other testimony and evidence. As mentioned above, hearsay testimony is less reliable than direct observation. But even with direct observation, the testimony should be examined to ensure that it is internally consistent, i.e., logical and consistent throughout. The investigator will also wish to ensure that the 88