Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Semnan, Iran
10.22034/law.2026.70998.3585
Abstract
There are similarities and differences among legal systems regarding the burden of proof and method of proving insanity. In the law of the United States and England, the burden of proving insanity lies with the party asserting it, depending on the case, plaintiff, defendant, or accused. Although this issue, with some variations, has been accepted in the legislation and judicial practices of these countries, it is not without exceptions. In certain situations, under statutory provisions or judicial precedent, the burden of proof, may be shifted. In French and Iranian criminal law, there is no general and explicit rule regarding the burden of proving insanity. In fact, although based on the relevant provisions, such as those in the civil code and laws governing non-contentious matters and criminal procedure, courts and prosecutorial authorities are assigned duties concerning the investigation of insanity, through hearing the statements of witnesses, reviewing medical records, and obtaining expert opinions in such a way that it suffices for a party to allege insanity, but the burden of proving this allegation is imposed on judicial authority, it can be inferred from the governing legal provisions, the burden of proving insanity at the time of performing legal acts or committing offenses, lies with the party asserting it. This inference may also be drawn, especially in criminal matters, from the obscure wording of Article 308 of the Islamic Penal Code, which was drafted under the influence of Shiite jurisprudence.
Keywords
)