چالش‌های فراروی دادرسی الکترونیک در ایران

 Bowen Poulin, Anne. (2004). "Criminal Justice and Videoconferencing Technology": Remote Defendant: Tulane Law Review. Vol 78. pp 1089-1112.
 Cremona. C.F. (1988). "the Public Character of Trial and Judgment in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights". in Protection Human Rights. the European Dimension studies in honour of Gerard J. Wiarda.
 Drahozal, Christopher. (2004). Ex ante selection of dispute forlitigation, in: <www.ssrn.com.>
 Edvardo de Resende Chaves Junior. Jose. (2012). Proceeding on the web, in Colloquium ofthe international association of procedural law. Electronic justice- present and future. University of pécs, Faculty of law pécs (Hungary) .Dordrecht.
 European Council. (2009). Multi- annual European e- justice action plan, 2009- 2013 & quot; Official journal of the European ::::union::::. C 75. pp 1- 12.
 Friedman, Richard. (2002). Proposed Amendments to Fed. R. Crim. P 26: An Exchange: Remote Testimony. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Vol 35.pp 695- 717.
 Haas, Aron. (2006). Videoconferencing in Immigration Proceeding. Pierce Law Review. Vol 5. Pp 59- 90.
 Heeks.R, Bailur.S. (2007). Analyzing E- Government Research: Perspectives, Philosophies, Theories, Methods and Practice. Government Information Quarterly. Volume 24. Issue 2. Pp 243- 265.
 Murphy, Peter. (1985). "A Practical Approach to Evidence". Second Edition. Financial Training Publications.
 OECD. (2003). "e government imperative: Main Findings". OECD.
 Roth, Michael. (2000). Laissez- Faire Videoconferencing: Remote Witness Testimony and Adversarial Truth. Ucla Law Review. Vol 48. Pp 185- 201.
 Treadway, Molly and Wiggins, Elizabeth. (2006). Videoconferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Legal and mpirical Issues and Direction forResearch. Law and Policy. Vol 28. Pp 211- 227.