منابع فارسی
قاسم,عدنان , حبیب زاده,محمدجعفر و موسوی مجاب,سیّددُرَید . (1404). راهبرد برون رفت از تعارض حق ارائه دلیل در دعوای کیفری و لزوم حمایت از حریم خصوصی (مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق فرانسه و ایران). فصلنامه تحقیق و توسعه در حقوق تطبیقی, (در نوبت انتشار), doi: 10.22034/law.2025.2055756.1629
2- خوبیاری، حامد. (1403). مطالعه تطبیقی و انتقادی حق بر فراموش شدن در پرتو اسناد بینالمللی و حقوق ایران. فصلنامه تحقیق و توسعه در حقوق تطبیقی، ۷(۲۳)، ۱۲۷-۱۵۲. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.2028152.1335
English sources
1. Andorno, R. (2013). Principles of international biolaw: Seeking common ground at the intersection of bioethics and human rights. Bruylant.
2. Birks, D., & Douglas, T. (2018). Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
3. Catley, :, & Claydon, L. (2015). The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 510–549.
4. de Kogel, C. H., & Westgeest, E. J. M. C. (2015). Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 580–605.
5. Farah, M. J. (2015). The unknowns of cognitive enhancement. Science, 350(6259), 379–380.
6. Farahany, N. A. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review, 64, 351–408.
7. Farisco, M., & Petrini, C. (2014). The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics, 7(2), 195–203.
8. Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54–63.
9. Hafner, K. (2019). The use of neuroimaging in Dutch criminal cases. Dissertation, Maastricht University.
10. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 1-19.
11. Ienca, M., et al. (2018). Rights for the age of neurotechnology. Neuron, 100(3), 1–4.
12. Jackson, J. D. (2009). The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: Towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Modern Law Review, 68(5), 737–764.
13. Jackson, J. D., & Summers, S. J. (2012). The internationalisation of criminal evidence. Cambridge University Press.
14. Lavazza, A. (2018). Freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 82.
15. Ligthart, S., et al. (2021). Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in European human rights law. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 8(3), 195–222.
16. Mecacci, G., & Haselager, : (2019). Identifying criteria for the evaluation of the implications of brain reading for mental privacy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 443–461.
17. Meynen, G. (2017). Neurolaw: Neuroscience, ethics, and law. Springer.
18. Nadelhoffer, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2012). Neurolaw and neuroprediction: Potential promises and perils. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 631–642.
19. Nugent, A. C. (2012). The application of neuroimaging to the understanding of depression. Biological Psychiatry, 71(1), 4–6.
20. Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience evidence, legal culture, and criminal procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33(3), 301–337.
21. Richmond, S. (2012). Brain imaging and the transparency scenario. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(2), 150–164.
22. Rosenfeld, J. : (2018). Detecting concealed knowledge using brain imaging techniques. In Detecting Concealed Information and Deception (p: 287–315). Academic Press.
23. Ryberg, J. (2017). Neuroethics and criminal justice. In Handbook of Neuroethics (p: 229–242). Springer.
24. Simpson, J. R. (2012). Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. Psychiatric Clinics, 35(4), 885–896
