English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The following paper aims to present the discussion regarding the standards of proof from a perspective of the fact-finding decision’s legitimacy. It develops the idea that under today’s understanding of the standards of proofs, the judges can be perceived as “moral hazard” in relation with the (lack of) consequences of erroneous decisions regarding the fact finding in a trial.

Estándares de prueba y“moral hazard”