Burden of proof

This article aims to address theoretical and practical issues arising from the author’s "lived experience" in dealing with the developments and intricacies of international arbitration, with a particular focus on experiences related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. These discussions are presented in two parts. The first part consists of general observations that emphasize, on the one hand, the unique importance of the Tribunal in contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security through the peaceful resolution of disputes between two predominantly adversarial states. The Tribunal is referred to as a symbolic institution embodying the "ideal of arbitration for peace." On the other hand, this section highlights the hybrid and multifaceted nature of the Tribunal and its manifestations, noting that the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is a multifunctional institution. It simultaneously serves as an international commercial arbitration tribunal, an international investment arbitration tribunal, a tribunal with jurisdiction over contractual disputes between two states, and a public international law tribunal. This multifaceted nature allows its awards to be examined from various perspectives. The second part primarily examines the Tribunal’s jurisprudence from the perspective of the interaction between distinct legal cultures involved in international arbitration and the mutual influence of their legal backgrounds on the arbitration process. This selection is made with consideration of the judicial issues prevalent in Iran and seeks to highlight the Tribunal’s unparalleled role in deepening the legal knowledge and practical skills of Iranian lawyers in dealing with international claims. In this regard, issues such as the non-requirement of power of attorney for legal representatives, the admissibility of written witness testimony (affidavit) by the parties, the submission of written witness testimony and oral testimony by individuals with a personal interest in the case or a master-servant relationship with the parties, the ability to cross-examine witnesses during hearings regarding the content and veracity of their testimony, and the standard applied by the Tribunal for meeting the burden of proof and the burden of production are all examined in light of the Tribunal’s various rulings.

In the case of “Iran’s Foreign Military Sales” (Case B-1), which encompasses six claims and a counterclaim, proceedings have continued for over four decades. A focal point in the process of filing numerous applications and the rulings issued in this case has consistently been the issue of evidence and the burden of proof. This qualitative research aims to address the fundamental question of the approaches taken by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal  regarding evidence and the burden of proof, as well as the implications of these approaches on the adjudication of Case B-1. The findings indicate that the Tribunal, in each case, has adhered not only to general legal principles - such as ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ -but also to the unique circumstances and specific conditions of each case, such as the accessibility of evidence, in determining the allocation of the burden of proof. As the parties strive to substantiate the credibility of their evidence before the Tribunal using general principles of international law, which are potentially recognized as applicable law by the Tribunal, they also seek to undermine the credibility of the opposing party’s evidence through various arguments. It is essential for Iran to enhance its precision in referencing the submitted documents and to clarify the technical dimensions, as well as to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s standards in future rulings, in order to achieve its objectives in other ongoing 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.