The principle of causation based on judicial and administrative opinions

fact that the verdict should be justified, documented, and reasonable, and its legal and material elements should be stated. Verdicts without any causation do not mean anything and are rarely issued; however, there are several instances in which the verdict is issued incompletely or defectively. Given the scanty legal literature on causation defects in Iran, the present descriptive-analytic study compares and contrasts the laws of Iran and other countries to examine court and quasi-judicial verdicts. This study introduces the defects of causation along with its implementation guarantee. In addition, it examines the most important examples of causation. To this end, the current study investigates how this principle is used in the Iranian legal system. Fundamental causation defects of a verdict can invalidate it although the passed laws do not explicitly state this opinion. The findings indicate that causation invalidation could be considered as a judicial invalidation since evaluation authorities, e.g., appeal courts, the supreme court, and the administrative court of justice, are responsible for detecting fundamental detects.