61. There is no provision in the Act which sets out the standard of proof that is to be applied in a public inquiry. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no standard of proof that the Public Inquiry is required to meet. 62. A public inquiry is an inves�ga�ve inquiry similar to an inquest (that is an inquiry into a death by a coroner). Although a public inquiry is not an inquest or a civil or criminal trial, the Panel is of the view that the standard of proof to be applied in a public inquiry is of the same standard of proof applicable to an inquest, that is, on a balance of probabili�es and not beyond reasonable doubt. 63. While an inquest is for the purposes of determining whether any person may be criminally concerned in the cause of death and to arrive at a verdict, a public inquiry into the enforced disappearance of a person is for the purpose of determining whether the State is in any way concerned in the involuntary disappearance of that person. 64. The relevant principles on the standard of proof in an inquest were discussed in detail by the Court of Appeal in the case of Teoh Meng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2014] 5 MLJ 741, where at page 759, it was held by Mohammad Ariff JCA as follows: “[48] The learned magistrate, and to a lesser extent, the High Court judge, cited and repeated the basic principles and rules on coronial jurisdic�on…. The commonly accepted principles are as follows: (a) an inquest is a fact finding exercise and not a method of appor�oning guilt; (b) in an inquest, there is no indictment, no prosecu�on, no defence and no trial. It is simply an a�empt to establish facts; (c) it is an inquisitorial and an inves�ga�on process, unlike a trial; (d) a coroners verdict is not determined by probabili�es but by established facts. A coroner is bound by evidence and can only find facts proved by evidence, not guesswork; 99 AMRI CHE MAT Standard of Proof in a Public Inquiry