Which Party Have The Burden Of Proof?

When we speak of the burden of proof , we are dealing with the basic question that arises in all trials on criminal. Every case involves allegations and the general rule is that the party that makes an allegation has to prove it. In a criminal case, the allegation is in the form of a criminal charge often called an information, indictment or complaint depending on the level of court and the jurisdiction.
Knowing who has the burden of proof in a case serves several purposes in addition to establishing who has to prove what in order to succeed. One is that it determines who goes first. The party who has the burden of proof goes first. Another reason why it is important to have a determination of which party has the burden of proof is that,

In saying this though, consideration should also be given to the fact that, due to the applicant’s traumatic experiences, he or she may not speak freely; or that due to time lapse or the intensity of past events, the applicant may not be able to remember all factual details or to recount them accurately or may confuse them; thus he or she may be vague or inaccurate in providing detailed facts. Inability to remember or provide all dates or minor details, as well as minor inconsistencies, insubstantial vagueness or incorrect statements which are not material may be taken into account in the final assessment on credibility, but should not be used as decisive

Credibility is established where the applicant has presented a claim which is coherent and plausible, not contradicting generally known facts, and therefore is, on balance, capable of being believed. The term “benefit of the doubt” is used in the context of standard of proof relating to the factual assertions made by the applicant. Given that in refugee claims, there is no necessity for the applicant to prove all facts to such a standard that the adjudicator is fully convinced that all factual assertions are true, there would normally be an element of doubt in the mind of the adjudicator as regards the facts asserted by the applicant. Where the adjudicator considers that the applicant’s story is on the whole coherent and plausible, any element of doubt should not prejudice the applicant’s claim; that is, the applicant should be given the “benefit of the