The requirements and effects of reverse onus in terrorist crimes and the need to revision the burden of proof

Subject Areas : Journal of Law and Politics

Elham Janfada ¹ , Mohammad ali Taheri bojd ^{2 *} , Seyed Hassan Hashemi ³

1 - دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی بیرجند
2 - Doctor of Criminal Law and Criminology - Assistant Professor of Law, Birjand Azad University
3 - Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch

Received: 2024-07-18 Accepted : 2025-08-16 Published : 2025-09-22

Keywords: reverse onus, burden of proof, terrorist crimes, the right to remain silent,

Abstract :

Despite the presumption of innocence, the prosecutor is obliged to prove the elements of the crime and its attribution to the accused. Nevertheless, in terrorist crimes, in terms of features such as the difficulty of collecting information, the existence of complex networks, the use of encrypted communications, and the cross-border nature of these crimes, putting the burden of proof on the prosecutor makes it difficult to detect and prosecute. Due to the impact of terrorist crimes on the national security of countries, it is necessary to adopt a differential approach that provides the defense of the society in the best way while respecting the defendant's rights. Creating such a balance is achieved by avoiding some effects of the presumption of innocence, i.e., accepting reverse onus and requiring the accused to provide evidence related to some elements of the crime. This article examines the effects of accepting reverse responsibility in terrorist crimes. The results of the research indicate that reversing the burden of proof in terrorist crimes and the need to provide evidence by the accused, while facilitating the prosecution of such crimes, causes limitations in some of the defendant's rights, such as the right to remain silent. However, due to the lack of explicit legal text in this field, it is necessary to review the requirements and conditions for reverse onus, and in this context, managing the accused's right to remain silent through creating a framework for applying these regulations can be considered as a solution.

References:

1- آشوری، محمد، «عدالت کیفری 2 (مجموعه مقالات)»، دادگستر، چاپ اول، تهران، 1392.
2- اکبری، عباسعلی، مالمیر، محمود، پوربافرانی، حسن، «مفهوم و مبانی عدول از اصل برائت»، فقه و حقوق اسلامی، شماره چهاردهم، سال هشتم،1396.
3- تدین، عباس،«تحصیل دلیل در آیین دادرسی کیفری»، میزان ، چاپ اول، تهران، 1388.
4- رحمدل، منصور، «قانون اساسی و بار اثبات در امور کیفری»، حقوق اساسی، شماره10، 1386.
5- شمس ناتری، محمد ابراهیم، «اصل برائت و موارد عدول از آن در حقوق کیفری»، مجله مجتمع آموزش عالی قم، شماره14، 1381.
6- عالی پور، حسن، «امنیت ملی و حقوق متهم؛ مطالعه تطبیقی آیین دادرسی در قبال اقدامات تروریستی»، مطالعات راهبردی، شماره اول، سال دوازدهم،1388.
7- منصورآبادی، عباس،«بار اثبات شرایط مساعد به حال متهم، علوم جنایی (مجموعه مقالات نکوداشت استاد دکتر محمد آشوری)»، سمت، چاپ اول، تهران،1383.
8- موحدی، جعفر، «معکوس کردن بار اثبات دلیل در آیین دارسی کیفری» مجد، چاپ دوم، تهران، 1393.
9- Allen, C., “Practical guide to evidence”. Routledge: Cavendish, 2008
. 10-
Allen, J.L., “Reconciling reverse burdens of proof with the presumption of innocence: a new approach”. PH. D thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2022. 11- Appelt, A.G., “RV Shelley-A New Meaning for the Presumption of Innocence”. Man. LJ, Vol. 12, 1982
. 12- Assefa, S.K.,“The principle of the presumption of Innocence and its Challenges in the Ethiopian Criminal Process”. Mizan Law Review, 6(2), 2012
. 13- Coco, A., “The mark of cain: The crime of terrorism in times of armed conflict as interpreted by the court of appeal of England and wales in R v. Mohammed Gul”. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 11(2), 2013
. 14- Giesen, I., “The burden of proof and other procedural devices in tort law”. European Tort Law, Springer, Vienna, 2009
. 15- Gupta, J., “Interpretation of Reverse Onus Clauses”. NUJS L. Rev. 5, 2012
. 16-
Hamer, D., “A dynamic reconstruction of the presumption of innocence”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31(2), 2011. 17-
Janosevic v. Sweden (Application no. 34619/97) EHRR, 2004. 18-
Kevin D. Kent, “Basic Rights and Anti-Terrorism Legislation”. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol 33, 2021. 19-
Khatiwada, A., “Shifting of Burden in Criminal Cases”. 2007, Available at SSRN 987439. 20- Kray, L.J. and Lind, E.A., “The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others' experiences in organizational justice judgments”. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 89(1), 2002
. 21- Picinali, F., “Innocence and burdens of proof in English criminal law”. Law, Probability and risk, 13(3-4), 2014
. 22-
R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Kebilene and Others, (2000). 23-
R v. Gul, 2013 U.K.S.C. 64, (2013). 24-
R. v. Khawaja, 2008 O.J. 4244 (2008). 25-
R. v. Oakes, 1959 Q.B.2 350 (1959). 26-
Salabiaku v. France (Application no. 10589/83), EHRR, (1991). 27-
Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, (2016). 28- Stumer, A.,“The presumption of innocence: Evidential and human rights perspectives”. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. 29- Suryakant, P.S., “Critical Analysis of Presumption of Innocence and Reverse Burden of Proof in India with Comparative Study”. M.A thesis, faculty of Humanities, 2023
. 30-
United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536 (1983). 31- Wildhaber, L., “The European Court of Human Rights: the past, the present, the future”. Am. U. Int'l L. Rev., 22, 2006
.