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

This study aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian and English legalsystems regarding the use of scientific evidence and to propose solutions for overcomingobstacles to its acceptance. The results indicate that within Iranian law, the acceptance ofscientific evidence is highly dependent on the judge’s personal judgment and the principleof “the judge’s personal knowledge,” which can lead to contradictory opinions. By contrast,the English legal system employs stricter criteria, such as the Daubert principles, whichhave enhanced the accuracy of scientific evidence evaluation but have also resulted in morecomplex and costly processes. Both legal systems face challenges, including the potentialmisuse of scientific evidence and a lack of specialized training for judges and experts.The study concludes by suggesting that the Iranian legal system, drawing on the Englishexperience, develop clear criteria for the acceptance of scientific evidence and standardizeits evaluation process. Reforms have also been proposed for the English context to reducecosts and streamline procedures. The study highlights the importance of specialized judicialtraining and international cooperation for improving the efficiency of judicial systems.