A Comparative Study of the Burden of Proof in Claims Based on Scientific Evidence in Iranian and English Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Law , Ma., C, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Ma., C, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Department of Private Law, Go., C, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.

10.22091/ijicl.2025.12647.1148

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both legal systems in the use of scientific evidence and to provide solutions to overcome the obstacles to the acceptance of this evidence. The results of this study show that in Iranian law, the acceptance of scientific evidence is highly dependent on the personal judgment of the judge and the principle of "the judge's knowledge", which can lead to contradictions in the opinions. In contrast, in the English legal system, the use of stricter criteria such as the Daubert principles has increased the accuracy of scientific evidence evaluation, but has also created more complex and costly processes. Both legal systems face challenges such as the misuse of scientific evidence and the lack of specialized training for judges and experts. Finally, the article suggests that the Iranian legal system, taking advantage of the experiences of the English, should develop clear criteria for the acceptance of scientific evidence and standardize the process of evaluating this evidence. In the English case, reforms have also been proposed to reduce costs and facilitate processes. This study emphasizes the importance of specialized training and international cooperation to improve the efficiency of judicial systems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 26 June 2025

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics