Final answer:
The passage addresses the burden of proof in legal cases, emphasizing that claimants must provide sufficient evidence. The 'casus foederis' requires claimants to establish essential facts through proof, and standards like 'preponderance of the evidence' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' vary depending on the case type.
Step-by-step explanation:
The passage in question discusses the burden of proof in a legal setting, indicating that the claimants are required to establish the essential facts to give rise to the casus foederis. The onus probandi, or burden of proof, lies upon the claimants, meaning it is their responsibility to provide sufficient evidence for their case. In a civil context, the standard for the plaintiff to meet is typically 'preponderance of the evidence', whereas in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. What is striking in your question is the connection between establishing a case through substantial evidence and the characteristics of the parties involved, as highlighted by Marcus Cato's principle. In scenarios where evidence is lacking, character assessments of the involved parties might have historically influenced the outcome, although this is not consistent with modern legal practices that prioritize evidence.