The Importance of the Burden of Proof and Evidence in Discrimination Disputes

Freedom and equality are constitutional principles that underpin the rule of law. This paper examines civil proceedings in discrimination disputes, focusing on the allocation of the burden of proof, the challenges faced by victims of discrimination in gathering evidence, and relevant international practices. It also examines the role of the Public Defender in adjudicating discrimination cases, particularly through the submission of amicus curiae opinions, and analyzes the significance and positive procedural implications of their admissibility in civil proceedings. Under current legislation, the parties are responsible for proving the facts upon which their claims are based and must present evidence to support or refute allegations of discrimination. Accordingly, the allocation of the burden of proof is crucial in discrimination cases, both from procedural and substantive legal perspectives. Once the burden is assigned, a party’s failure to present evidence or fulfil its evidentiary obligations will result in negative legal consequences. Another key focus of the study is access to justice and procedural equality for persons with disabilities. In particular, the paper addresses issues related to legal representation in court for such individuals. Under existing law, attorneys must be certified to represent clients; however, this requirement posed challenges for individuals with psychosocial disabilities who may be unable to articulate their will fully. To address this, a legislative innovation introduced the concept of the “special plaintiff,” a new procedural actor that allows organizations advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities to participate directly in civil discrimination proceedings. This has facilitated greater protection of procedural rights for persons with disabilities. The paper also considers the potential to extend this model to other vulnerable groups, thereby improving access to justice more broadly (Kharitonashvili, 2024). As of 2025, only three organizations are registered as special plaintiffs, underscoring the need to raise awareness among relevant stakeholders. Increasing participation by such organizations would enhance legal representation in discrimination disputes and strengthen protections for victims. Given the complexity of evidentiary distribution and collection in discrimination litigation, the study compares common law and continental legal systems. This includes an analysis of case law, doctrinal approaches, and procedural norms, particularly in light of EU directives. Additionally, the paper evaluates anti-discrimination norms within religious legal systems. Notably, while Islamic law upholds principles of justice and equality in labor relations, there remains limited judicial practice in discrimination cases compared to other jurisdictions. Through this comparative analysis, the paper offers recommendations for improving national legislation, especially concerning the burden of proof and evidentiary standards in discrimination proceedings.