Sexual assault is a global concern affecting individuals of all ages, races, and socioeconomic statuses, with significant adverse impacts on physical, mental, economic, and social well-being. This paper advocates for policy change to support survivors of sexual assault by examining articles that provide a comprehensive overview of sexual assault as a pattern of intimate partner violence in the United States. The review explores vulnerable populations, gaslighting tactics, rape myths, and how disbelief reduces survivor reporting and increases trauma, including PTSD. Although gender-neutral language is used throughout, the focus is on women's perspectives due to the high rates of violence committed by men against women. A multi-disciplinary approach incorporating medical, mental health, law enforcement support, and advocacy is recommended to lessen secondary victimization and empower survivors in resolving their cases within the criminal justice system

Dear Editor, Science involves controversy, conflicting results and thoughtful analysis. Clinical trials finding a significant efficacy for a new investigational therapy require confirmatory trials, but often subsequent trials result in a negative finding (equivalence or non-significant efficacy).These negative trials are important and, in the past, have had trouble getting published. Publication bias is common, as studies showing a significant efficacy are typically published, while negative studies have been largely ignored. While this trend is slowly reversing, the onerous task for authors in overcoming this bias necessities a higher burden for quality writing and more detailed analysis than required for studies with significant positive findings.

Introduction The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity in power between citizens and administrative bodies, the admission of evidence in administrative proceedings should be facilitated in favor of citizens. Moreover, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant is a principle that should be adjusted in favor of citizens, and the court should accurately identify the true claimant party. Furthermore, the court’s decisions should be supported by evidence-based reasoning. During proceedings, both parties present their evidence, and the judge should actively seek additional evidence when required. Merely reflecting the conclusion of reasoning in the court’s decision falls short of characterizing the decision as evidence-based. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine a number of decisions by the Administrative Court of Justice concerning the distribution of the burden of proof, the judge’s active approach in seeking evidence, and the incorporation of reasoning process in the decisions. The study tried to address the following research questions: How is the burden of proof distributed between the parties during court proceedings? And to what extent are the issued decisions based on evidence? Literature Review A review of the related literature revealed a Persian-language article titled “Critical Analysis of Consideration of Evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice” (Mohsenzadeh, 2018), which investigated the issue of evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice. Materials and Methods Using a library research method, the present study analyzed the textual content of decisions issued by various branches of the Administrative Court of Justice. Results and Discussion Not every citizen who files a complaint in the Administrative Court of Justice is necessarily the claimant; they may have initially been accused of a violation by the administration. In such instances, the administration is the actual claimant, despite the citizen initiating the legal complaint. Moreover, when the administration fails to fulfill its legal obligations, the plaintiff citizen is burdened with proving the nullity in the lawsuit. Therefore, imposing the burden of proof on the citizen is not commensurate with the objectives of administrative proceedings. In instances where the administration accuses a citizen of a violation and issues a decision or some kind of punishment based on that accusation, the administration should provide clear and compelling evidence—as imposing punishment necessitates incontrovertible proof. Put differently, by assessing evidence presented by both parties with a margin of 51% favoring the administration and 49% favoring the citizen, one cannot subject the citizen to penalties such as fines, building demolitions, or the revocation of business licenses. In cases where there is no punishment for the citizen, the administration must be held accountable, providing a rationale for its actions and decisions. Consequently, the burden of proof cannot be placed on the citizen making the claim as practiced in civil lawsuits, but rather it is necessary that the judge get actively involved in seeking evidence. In administrative proceedings, most documents are under the control of the administration, leaving citizens without access to them. It is thus becomes incumbent upon the judge to request those documents from the administration and thoroughly examine them. In administrative proceedings, the judge must not adopt a passive stance, merely accepting the evidence presented by the involved parties. Instead, they should take an active role in seeking out evidence pertinent to different aspects of the case. Furthermore, if necessary, the judge should delegate the investigation to judicial officers or refer the matter to an expert. Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice addresses this need in Article (7) by considering the referral of matters to experts, as well as in Article (41), which predicts any investigation and the use of judicial officers for such purposes. Additionally, Article (44) grants judges the authority to demand documents from the administration. These articles underscore the imperative for judges to get actively involved in seeking evidence and to leverage these capabilities to uncover the truth and establish certainty in administrative proceedings. These legal provisions are designed to create balance and empower citizens, who often find themselves in a disadvantaged position against administrative bodies wielding public power. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to use such legal provisions in administrative proceedings to safeguard the rights of citizens. Additionally, the court’s decision must be accompanied by evidence-based reasoning. A reasoned judgment includes the evidence presented by both parties. Moreover, the judge shall be tasked with determining what evidence is the most powerful and persuasive and why. The judge should clearly state both the premises of reasoning and the conclusion in the final verdict. Merely using phrases such as according to the contents of the case and the arguments expressed, followed by the conclusion, does not meet the criteria of evidence-based, valid judgment. Judges must not merely rely on the reasoning process as it goes on in their minds, nor is it sufficient to simply state the conclusion. Instead, they must incorporate the premises, the reasoning, and the conclusion in the final decision. Conclusion The findings indicate that the burden of proving the claim weighs heavily on the citizen. The judge, however, rarely exhibited the requisite level of diligence in seeking evidence and leveraging the provisions outlined in Articles (7), (41), and (44) of Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice. It was also found that the reasoning process underlying the court’s decisions was not clearly articulated in the decisions.

The burden of proof in disputes between taxpayer and tax office respecting the income tax is governed by special legal rules corresponding with the special character of tax transactions on the basis of general rule of proving in the legal system. On the one hand, general rules of proving and some principles like the no obligation principle constitute the bases of burden of proof rules in the income tax and on the other hand, special position of taxpayer and the role of his tax return in the documenting and evidencing tax transactions as well as sovereign and formal position of tax office in assessment of income tax create special phenomena respecting burden of proof of factual transaction by taxpayer or tax office. This research is to analyse and propose a theory on purden of proof in income tax disputes on the basis of general rules of evidence and special rules and phenomena of tax law. The research method of this article is based on clarifying, analyzing and legal concluding on the basis of the relevant theorical foundations, general legal principles, special tax rules, relevant laws and regulations, judicial practices and awards as well as findings of comparative law research. The research is to theorize for initiating the principles, rules for legal questions of burden of proof in the income tax cases.

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.

The fulfillment of criminal responsibility depends on the proof of the accused's capacity, including wisdom, maturity, discretion and knowledge, and the absence of the above mentioned factors leads to the impossibility of attributing the offense to the accused and as a result of not fulfilling his criminal liability. By claiming the existence of the above obstacles, there has been doubted about the realization of responsibility. The implementation of the acquittal principle and necessity in equality between accused and the public prosecutor's office in the fair trial requires that the prosecutor proves the existence of perception, discretion and knowledge. According to the Islamic Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the burden of proof of the lack of perceptions including minor and psychological distress caused by insanity and drunkenness (except in the intentional murder), with the consent of the expert has been held by the prosecutor, but despite of the lack of clarifying the mentioned rules, it seems that the burden of proof in respect of lacking discretion and knowledge, i. e. reluctance, compulsion, necessity and mistaken, is left to the accused.

According to a legal rule, the burden of proof is on the claimant who presents a claim to prove the facts and difficulty in proving the claim never frees the claimant from the obligation to prove. If the claimant does not provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim he has acted at its own disadvantage. On the other hand, in the arbitration agreement, the principle of party autonomy is an accepted principle and according to it, the parties are free to choose the procedural and substantive provisions governing the agreement. This article tries to determine whether the authority of the parties in determining the governing law includes the authority to adjust and change the burden of proof with the descriptiveـanalytical method. It is obvious that this authority, as well as the authority of the arbitral tribunal about adjustment of the burden of proof, should not lead to a change that would conflict with public policy, mandatory rule, and rules related to the principle of equal and fair treatment of the parties. There are different opinions about whether the burden of proof has a procedural or substantive nature but our review in this article shows that the dominant tendency in the international commercial arbitration procedure is that the rule of burden of proof has a substantive nature.