What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.3.13 Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements?

Register of applicable privacy legislation, regulation and contractual requirements per jurisdiction; Sanctions analysis attached to the register; Contracts referencing this document or equivalent as the basis of responsibilities.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.3.13?

Legal register naming one jurisdiction while PII of several is processed

ISO/IEC 27701:2025 · Annex A Table A.3 information security controls with PII-specific guidance

`A.3.13` Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements

When working out which laws, regulations, statutory duties and contractual commitments bind it, the organization shall identify the legal penalties that failing to meet PII processing obligations could attract, including large fines levied directly by the local supervisory authority. It shall also take into account that, in some jurisdictions, a standard such as this one may serve as the foundation of the contract with a customer, dividing security, privacy and PII protection duties between the two parties, in which case the contract terms can ground contractual penalties.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.3.13. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ISO/IEC 27701:2025 in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Register of applicable privacy legislation, regulation and contractual requirements per jurisdiction · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Sanctions analysis attached to the register · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Contracts referencing this document or equivalent as the basis of responsibilities · Vendor register / contract repository

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Legal register naming one jurisdiction while PII of several is processed
Requirements identified but never linked to the controls that meet them

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

A.3.12 Response to information security incidents · A.3.14 Protection of records