35. a) the computer system was operating properly or the fact of its not operating properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic record; or b) it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the other litigant party seeking to introduce it; or c) it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not record or store it under the control of the party seeking to introduce the record. Presumption of Courts When assessing the admissibility of evidence in accordance with this Proclamation, the court may have regard to the procedure, standard or manner in which a similar computer system is functioning. 36. 37. Burden of proof 1/ Public prosecutor has the burden of proofing material facts regarding the cases brought to the court in accordance with the standards stipulated in law. 2/ Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-article (1) of this Article, upon proof of basic facts of the case by the public prosecutor if the court believes necessary to shift the burden of proofing to the accused, the court may do so. PART FIVE INSTITUTIONS THAT FOLLOW UP CASES OF COMPUTER CRIME Public Prosecutor and Police Following up Cases of Computer Crime 1/ A public prosecutor or investigative officer empowered to follows up computer crime cases in accordance with the powers conferred by law shall have the responsibility to enforce and cause to enforce the provisions of this Proclamation. 2/ Public prosecution office and Police empowered in this Proclamation may organize separate specialized task units when necessary to follow up computer crimes 14