Coll 28/95 ‘Persia. Relations with H.M.G. Private claims against H.M.G.: case of the S.S. “Kara Deniz”.’ [‎96r] (191/691)

25
68 . Evidence .—The question of sufficiency of evidence was discussed in
paragraphs 31-36, where it was seen that the documentary evidence furnished by
our Legation and consulates in regard to the various claims falls as a rule far
short of that prescribed by Chapter XXII of the Consular Instructions as proper
where claims are to be preferred by His Majesty’s Government against another
Government. The conditions prevailing in Persia at the times when most of the
claims were originally advanced seem, in fact, to have been such as not to demand
the preparation of documentary evidence with all the fullness and precision of
present-day requirements; while much of such documentary evidence as did exist
in our Legation and consular archives has since been lost or destroyed during the
war-time disturbances—in the case of Kermanshah this lack of documentary
evidence, indeed, extends to the entire body of claims recorded there. On the
other hand, the documentary evidence wherewith to establish claims of more
recent date must often be assumed to be in the possession of the claimants
themselves, and this would apply in particular to the first four of the important
claims specified at the beginning of paragraph 67 above.
69. The main difficulty, indeed, as regards the peace-time claims resides in
the great host of miscellaneous claims, also referred to in paragraph 67 above,
which rest upon documentary evidence, occasionally complete, but usually
incomplete, not to mention others in which it is wholly absent. A number of these
earlier claims are for old-world events, in which it seems doubtful whether either
the original claimant or the alleged offender is still alive, or whether after this
lapse of time he has any further interest in the claim he preferred many years
ago. On the other hand, a much larger number are by British firms formerly
trading in Persia, who, in consequence of declining business, seem to be going
one by one into liquidation, and who may be expected to be more active in the
pursuit of their claims. It seems evident, however, that in the circumstances
which have occurred opportunity must be afforded to these various claimants to
furnish any additional evidence which may yet be available to them in support of
their respective claims—either to supplement what we have, or to replace what
has been lost, so as to provide a suitable documentary basis for as many as possible.
It appears to be a usual practice, previous to the institution of arbitral
proceedings of the kind, to publish a notification in the London Gazette for
general information, and to give opportunity for the production of evidence in
support of claims; and there seems the greater need for this in a case like the
present, where the evidence we have, though often showing a just grievance, is as
a rule defective according to international standards. In this connexion Sir R.
Hoare’s remark in paragraph 7 of his despatch of the 18th February, 1933.( 4 )
that it will be comparatively simple to obtain from claimants affidavits or declara
tions where necessary, should be borne in mind (most of Messrs. Lynch’s or the
Persian Transport Company’s robbery claims are unsupported in this way); while,
as regards consulate claims, more especially in the case of Shiraz, much of the
evidence furnished is not certified by the consul, as it should have been and will
have to be.
70. From the foregoing it would appear, therefore, that if the proposal to
exclude war-time claims from the arbitration is eventually agreed to, we shall
be left with these peace-time and contractual claims, the most important of which,
specified in paragraph 67 above, reach a total which might be roughly estimated
in sterling at about £263,000, apart from interest; leaving for the more numerous
miscellaneous claims, also mentioned there, a total which might be similarlv
estimated at about £72,000, apart from interest; or a combined total of about
£335,000, apart from interest. But as regards these numerous miscellaneous
claims, until we are furnished with all such further evidence as the claimants
may yet be able to adduce, we shall not be in a position to make the final
apportionment of their claims between such as can be regarded as adequately
supported, and such as are not, for the purpose of submitting to an arbitral
tribunal. Meanwhile, the individual claims are set out in the volumes Legation
Claims and Consulate Claims, showing the facts of each and the evidence we at
present have. When this is supplemented by all such further evidence as we mav
hope to obtain (more especially perhaps from British firms) from the customary
notification in the London Gazette and any other steps deemed desirable once the
treaty position has been regularised, it should not be difficult to append this
further evidence to what we have, and then to determine from the legal stand-
(*) See also Sir P. Loraine’s despatch No. 100 of February 16, 1924—E 2428/344/34.
rmni E