AMRI CHE MAT burden of proof may also shi� to the Government since the events in issue may lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authori�es. If they then fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the Court to establish the facts or otherwise provide a sa�sfactory and convincing explana�on, strong inferences may be drawn.” 67.4. Bleier v Uruguay26, the Human Rights Commi�ee of the United Na�ons held: "'13.3 With regard to the burden of proof, this cannot rest alone on the author of the communica�on, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant informa�on ... In cases where the author has submi�ed to the Commi�ee allega�ons supported by substan�al witness tes�mony, as in this case, and where further clarifica�on of the case depends on informa�on exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Commi�ee may consider such allega�ons as substan�ated in the absence of sa�sfactory evidence and explana�ons to the contrary submi�ed by the State party.” 27 68. 26 27 Thus, the burden of proof in cases of enforced disappearances rests with the State. What this means is that, the Panel is en�tled to accept inferences submi�ed by Counsel on behalf of the family of Amri Che Mat, Assis�ng Officers of SUHAKAM and Counsel of the Bar Council against the State. It is for the State to adduce sa�sfactory evidence and give explana�ons on a balance of probabili�es to show that the State was not in any way involved in the disappearance of the person within the defini�on of enforced disappearance under Ar�cle 2 of ICPPED. Communica�on No. R.7/30, 29 March 1982 See also Salah Saker v Algeria (HRC, March 2006) 106