جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « اثبات » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Justice and order have remained fundamental principles within various legal systems throughout history. In certain systems, these ideals are believed to be realized through the strict enforcement of laws, while in others, consensus around societal norms is deemed essential for achieving justice and order. Despite these differences, it is evident that all judicial systems strive to attain these goals by uncovering established truths. In the pursuit of justice and order, two distinct methods have emerged: the objective analysis of evidence and the ascription of enduring meaning to evidence that transcends the bounds of litigation, and the narrative approach, wherein the rationale aligns with the parties' narratives and derives contextual meaning from them. This exposition is rooted in the belief that prevailing legal scholarship in Iranian law emphasizes the significance of objective evidence, while the narrative approach holds greater sway in American law. However, through a comparison of these two methodologies, it becomes apparent that elements of the narrative approach are also present in Iranian civil litigation. It could even be contended that evidence fundamentally cannot be applied to a dispute without considering the underlying narrative. Consequently, legal scholars should acquaint themselves with this narrative approach and its principles, enabling them to possess a heightened self-awareness that contributes to broader objectives within civil litigation.

The fact that the judge must reach certitude and then proceed to issue a judgment is a truth acknowledged in the law of proof of claim. Acquiring certitude is subject to a set of norms and rules called "ethics of certitude". Not all certitudes, with different bases, could be considered valid. Regardless of the philosophical and epistemological issues regarding the nature of certitude, how to achieve it is also very important. Relativists believe that the criterion of acceptability and validity of certitudes is their reliance on reason. A valid certitude is a certitude that is justified by sufficient evidence and reasons. A certitude that is not supported by reason lacks epistemological value and validity and cannot be used as a basis for action. The necessity of the judge's compliance with the rules related to the ethics of certitude is higher because judicial certitudes involve important social and practical consequences. The certitude of the judge seriously affects the rights and social affairs of the people; therefore, achieving the certitude is extremely important to the judge. In a descriptive-analytical way, the present article examined and compared the rights of proof of litigation with the criteria of certitude ethics. Whether the judge has the authority to evaluate the evidence freely or whether he has to agree to the provisions of the evidence and issue a verdict based on them are among the most critical challenges of proving a claim.The current study examined proving a lawsuit in the courts from the perspective of ethics of certitude. According to al-Qaida, a judge must follow all the moral rules and knowledge frameworks to gain certitude, and only then can he make his certitude the basis for issuing a verdict. The basic question is whether it is possible to pay attention to these criteria in the court according to the rules governing the rights of proof of litigation and the criteria raised regarding the validity of certitudes. Is it possible that the rules related to proof of litigation conflict with the principles of certitude ethics? One of the most important challenges ahead is the concept of imposing proof on the judge. Some reasons, such as confessions, regardless of whether they convince the judge or not, "must" be the basis for a verdict. Such a concept strengthens the hypothesis that it is basically not important for the legislator to believe in the judge, and contrary to the initial idea, the judge, without certitude and knowledge about the subject of the lawsuit, must also make his decision. On the other hand, the free assessment and the granting of absolute discretionary powers concerning the evidence in the case give rise to the fear of judicial tyranny and disregard for reasons. It seems that a correct understanding of how the judge acquires certitude is related to the fundamental positions in the ethics of certitude. Without paying attention to these original foundations, getting a clear and comprehensive picture of the relationship between reason and the judge's certitude is impossible. Although the prevailing approach in the domestic and international legal systems is that the judge is free to evaluate and accept reason, epistemological investigations and attention to the foundations of moral certitude clarify that certitude gets its value and validity from reason and not vice versa. On this basis, it is not acceptable for the judge to hear (consider) the reason and pass it by without gaining certitude. Either one should argue against the reason, or as long as the light of the reason is clear, one should stick to its implication and believe its contents. In this sense, the imposition of evidence and their priority on the judge's certitude is more defensible than arbitrary freedom in accepting and rejecting evidence.

Without entering into the subject of standard of proof, National rules and statutes around the international commercial arbitrations prescribe the principle of freedom to determine the value of affirmative evidence and proof of facts for arbitral tribunals. The practice of arbitral tribunals has previously stemmed from intellectual backgrounds of its members and their respective legal systems. Due to the role of common law and civil law lawyers in establishment of arbitration practices and under their influences, two different criteria have been applied in standards of proof. In unification process of practices in arbitrations, the arbitral tribunals had attempted to apply a unique standard of proof and evaluation of evidence. Despite of evaluation of evidence, which has three psychological, logical, and legal aspect, the standard of proof is part of judicial epistemology and it has merely psychological and logical aspect and does not have legal element. It seems that to reach a definite standard of proof is difficult, but conviction threshold definitely has recognizable criteria. In this research, while we examine currently used standards of proof in international commercial arbitrations and analyzing the epistemological aspect to evaluate evidence, we try to determine a reasonable standard to evaluate evidence and examine how to apply and implement it in evaluation of evidence.

The system of proving litigation in administrative proceedings is of undeniable importance for ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and guaranteeing the principle of the rule of law. In the present article, we intend to use a descriptive-analytical method to define and present various types of evidence, the quality of evidence in administrative matters and to examine the evidence in the administrative court and the real role of the judge in proving and distributing the responsibility of proof; While in the implementation of Article 96 of the Constitution, the laws have been enacted and validated in accordance with Islamic rules or Imami jurisprudence, so in some cases we refer to the criminal law and civil law of Iran. The procedure in the Court of Administrative Justice is different from that of legal and criminal courts, because the nature of these courts and their principles are different. Therefore, the procedure of those courts cannot be ruled by the Court of Administrative Justice. Imposing the burden of proof on a citizen who claims that the administration has violated the rule of law will be a serious obstacle to achieving the goals of administrative proceedings; Therefore, it is necessary to modify the rule of "Al-Bineh Ali Al-Mada'i" in the administrative proceedings and also consider the administration as a respondent, so that the administration is obliged to explain its decisions in a documented and reasoned manner and provide rational and legal grounds for the challenged decision.

The conclusion of certain juridical acts is not merely subject to substantive rules; also some formal conditions are required for that juridical act to be recognized as valid. One of the most common of these acts is a will, the validity of which in most legal systems is also subject to the observance of formal conditions. On this basis, the conclusion of a will is not merely adherent to the willing of the testator, and some formalities have been drawn up to adjust it. In Iranian law, after enactment of the Code on How to Adjust a Testament and Probate Code, and in American law, according to the Wills Act and the court ruling in Pavlinko's case, observance of formal conditions in adjusting the will is undoubtedly necessary and its sanction will be invalidity of will; which is known as strict compliance requirement. However, strict compliance requirement in both legal systems is not immune to opposition, and the desire to deviate from it has always been developed in the mind of a group. Hence, the most important question arising about strict compliance requirement in these two legal systems is whether it is possible to deviate from strict compliance requirement in the will or not? In this article, through the library method, the hypothesis is proved that although paying attention to the functions of strict compliance requirement in the will requires strict compliance requirement as a principle in the will and deviation from it is possible only if the intention of the testator has been correctly established in court, the analysis of Iranian and American law shows that due to the ineffectiveness of alternative theories of strict compliance requirement, the possibility of deviation is ruled out.

Proof of ownership litigation in the various stages of property registration, there are rules about how to register such property, which must be taken into account, especially in real estate, which is subject to legal requirements and formalities and such a request cannot be accepted absolutely in all immovable property with a single shape and quality. Action for ownership Proof is one of civil action that there are many differences of verdicts about accepting or rejecting it in legal authorities ,so that some of courts has accepted action for ownership Proof based on precedent No. 569 dated Dec.31,1991 of General Board of Supreme Court of Iran and believe that Legal obligation of owner to demand for their self-property registration in part which Public registration of real estate is advertised , not prevented that courts of justice adjudicate about disputes over property ownership and in some of courts avoid from such action by virtue of article 22,46,47 and 48 of Real Property Law and contents of precedent No. 672 dated Dec.21,2004 of General Board of Supreme Court of Iran and also contents law of course to pursue land without official deed. In present article , we review proof of ownership is basically devoid of description of the claim and opposition to the principle or appearance and it is merely a form of litigation that the courts are not the reference of the preparation of the case. The authority to declare ownership of immovable property is the registration authorities.

According to jurisprudence texts and legal standards (Article 60 of the Criminal Code), criminal evidence includes five types of confession, testimony, oath, oath and knowledge of the judge. It is noticed that in criminal evidence, there is no specific place for the evidence obtained from new technologies. These evidences can be types of constantly evolving electronic technologies related to virtual space and computer systems or a variety of sounds, images and videos recorded and available to judicial authorities, which can be more effective in persuading the conscience of the judge compared to traditional evidence such as testimony. The current research is trying to answer this basic question with a descriptive analytical method and using library tools, firstly, is there a capacity in the jurisprudence sources and the current criminal law texts to take advantage of the evidences that are constantly progressing and expanding from new technologies or not? Unfortunately, in recent decades, despite the increasing use of modern evidence in the legal systems of other countries, Islamic legislators have neglected to synchronize themselves with the developments related to this field and this has led to confusion and differences in the judicial procedure regarding the possibility or impossibility of using modern evidence. Especially considering the importance of the principle of legitimacy of education, it has created evidence in criminal matters. Despite some ambiguities and the need to make some legal reforms, there is a suitable capacity to use the evidence from new technologies in the 2013 approved Islamic Criminal Law.

The rule of imposition of reason in jurisprudence generally and briefly has a history, and its acceptance and validity can be seen in the jurisprudence rule of Allah Ali al-Mada'i. The traces of this rule in the actions of the legislator can be seen in Article 1257 of the Civil Code and Article 197 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this research, an attempt has been made to define the framework of the rule of the place of discussion through the identification, counting, investigation and assignment of the involved components in a logical manner and working on love, the rule of bearing the burden of proving the reason for the effect in the hands of general benefits (the general rules of the rule that in all contempt rules, it has general (rules related to the type and characteristics of the lawsuit) and partial rules (rules related to the type of reason to be expressed), which requires an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the rule to pay attention to all three levels of the mentioned rules. . Among the sensitive and complicated points, we can mention the standard of the claimant's recognition of the negative and the level necessary to provide evidence and reach the level of proof. As long as the above points are paid attention to as independent institutions in the judicial field, the problem will remain on its own. The solution to the problem lies in sociology. The set of the above points has been examined and carefully considered in order to explain the concept of the rule's enamel, i.e. the burden of proof.

 There is no end to the dispute over the admissibility of a claim for proof of ownership of immovable property in the jurisprudence. On the other hand, there are situations in which the plaintiff has to go to court and has no choice but to do so. The general duty of the courts to hear cases also necessitates a hearing. The subject of the present study is the examination and classification of forms of property proof lawsuits that may be raised in court at any of the stages of property registration. The consideration and issuance of a ruling in each of these forms has its own special effects. This research has been done in a descriptive and analytical manner based on library sources and the use of judicial opinions issued. Seeks to reduce clients.

There is disagreement in jurisprudence about the validity of litigation or the demand for proof of ownership. Some courts accept such a lawsuit and others issue a non-hearing order. Despite some legal research and judicial efforts, the current issue is still relevant and a well-established scientific perspective has not been formed. In this article, while explaining the issue in a preliminary way, the opinions of the proponents and opponents of the validity of such a claim and the critique of each are briefly presented. Then, an example of a judicial procedure based on opposing the validity of the mentioned lawsuit is given and analyzed. In the end, For reasons such as attention to the existence of a legal dispute in ownership, referring to the decision of ownership in some laws and the non-contradiction of the proceedings of such a lawsuit with the jurisdiction of the state registration office and other reasons, a detailed summary of the author on the validity of the claim for proof of ownership is presented except in exceptional cases and as a result of the superiority of the opinions of those in favor of the validity of the said claim.

One of the main functions of evidence law is to demonstrate the applicable standard of proof. In some kinds of evidence, it is not the case because fact finders make decisions according to the probative value of the evidence. In other pieces of evidence, there may be a need to find a standard. Lawyers trained in common law systems often enquire about the applicable standard of proof but in civil law countries and particularly Iranian law it depends on the discretion of judges and there are no clear rules. Instead, fact-finding standards are based on some general principles. In common-law systems, the standard of proof requires in ordinary civil cases the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a "preponderance of the evidence". In some other civil cases "Clear and convincing" evidence is the main standard and in criminal cases "Beyond all reasonable doubt". By using normative considerations of efficiency, on the one hand, we may argue and propose that as the main principle, multiple standards are more efficient and will better align decision-making with fact-finding goals than using a unique standard and on the other hand, the preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence may be regarded as main standards.

The resolution of a judicially unknown matter requires acquiring knowledge about the external facts affecting the relevant case. The judge may go through a psychological, logical, and legal process for finding external facts to achieve conscientious persuasion. The judge also needs to know the basics and steps of forming a reliable belief before reaching a reliable belief. During the process of gaining a judicial belief, the judge does not need to psychologically and logically follow special regulations, but is only required to observe the general principles and rules of epistemology. This stage of proceedings is actually a matter of epistemology. This analytical-descriptive study aimed to analyze the rules of the epistemology of proof in civil proceedings, explores the ways to achieve a valid judicial belief and the factors affecting it from psychological and logical aspects, and proposes a criterion for measuring the validity and truth of judicial beliefs. The judge uses declarative sentences, which may be either true or false because of their nature, to express his/her knowledge of relevant matters as a form of judicial analogy. Such declarative sentences indicate the judge’s mental image of disputed issues obtained through a process of research and analysis for fact finding. According to Article 199 of the Civil Proceedings Law, the judge is obliged to try to discover the truth and form the knowledge and belief consistent with the outside world. The judge’s research scope and results are determined and announced based on the judge’s basic and acquired beliefs. Such beliefs are formed in the judge's mind and psyche under the influence of the concepts existing in his/her mind as well as his/her skill in mental imagery and application of logical arguments. However, intellectual background, prejudices, emotional factors, or intuitional knowledge can affect the formation of judicial beliefs in some cases. The judge's final belief consists of several partial beliefs, all of which should be justified and honest to cause the formation of a correct and realistic belief. Judicial beliefs must be well-founded and strongly correlated with the outside world. Since evidence is the connection ring of this correlation, a justified belief should be evidence-based. Judicial beliefs must be established based on logical thinking and reasoning because this process can reduce the risk of error or fraud in the induction of unreal matters. Truth refers to the conformity of a belief with the outside world's facts, and the judge can achieve a true belief only through pieces of evidence. Nevertheless, this is not possible in all lawsuits due to the difficulty of access to pieces of evidence and their uncertainty in achieving the pure truth about disputed facts. Therefore, judicial beliefs cannot be investigated from this viewpoint. Considering the importance of this issue, articles 3 and 4 of the Civil Proceedings Law, which emphasize the necessity of hostility settlement and encourage the use of heterogeneous tools in terms of fact-implying probability, expect appropriate and reasonable, not pure, conformity of judicial beliefs to the outside world. Although one of the important tasks of judges is to try to achieve judicial beliefs in pure conformity with facts, there is no definitive criterion to verify the truth of judicial beliefs because of the limited access to pieces of evidence and the varying degree to which they imply facts in the outside world. It can be hence stated that the coherence of beliefs constituting a judicial belief is a practical and reasonable criterion to measure the apparent truth of that judicial belief. The partial beliefs obtained in the fact finding process must create a special mental state for the judge to convince him/her that external facts exist. As a threshold for deciding about the verification of facts or “standard of proof”, this mental state is influenced by two factors: confidence and caution.

The power imbalance in the worker-employer relationship and the dependence of the worker’s livelihood on the labor makes it necessary to introduce special regulations to govern lawsuits between the parties to this relationship. Article 164 of the Iranian Labor Law puts the Supreme Labor Council and the Ministry of Cooperatives, Labor and Social Welfare in charge of codifying the special regulations governing the procedures of the boards to hear these claims. The most important regulation currently in effect is the Labor Procedure. This regulation, enacted in 2012, despite its similarities with the civil procedure, contains special principles that could be considered as the innovations of this regulation and whose recognition is essential for the promotion of legal services.

In Islamic jurisprudence, jurists have provided criteria and cited various legal rules and principles in order to determine the applicant. The reason for the jurists for this distinction is that they can determine the burden of proving the dispute to the recipient. However, it is not always the case that he wants to be the only active member during the proceedings. Sometimes this view is accompanied by changes such as the judge's involvement in proving the case. Because civil litigation systems are subdivided into different legal systems, the role of the court in each legal system is different. Thus, in the system of accusatory proceedings, civil litigation is the property of the litigants and the judge is merely a passive member who can have no role other than issuing a verdict based on the reasons presented by the parties. However, in the system of investigative proceedings, the role of the judge in proving the lawsuit is active and he can search for evidence to prove the lawsuit in parallel with the plaintiff. In a way, the activeness of the judge reduces the role of the plaintiff in carrying the burden of proof. In this article, the basics of the role of the judge in proving the case are evaluated.

Meticulous and fiduciary is one of the oldest and the most familiar proposed concepts in every legal system. Ethicalvalue of meticulous and its special rank among people caused that it has special rank in every different legal systemtoo. Some of legal system, such as common law, express some circumstances and criteria for recognizing meticulous’qualification, and in some other legal system such as Iran, recognize that meticulous is a person whom owner or legislator had made it, as a meticulous. Furthermore the meticulous also has been investigating in a special way in a legal claim. A sentence to a lack of surety in order to losing properties is a component of meticulous’ benefits; and the expression ‘there isn’t any responsibilities for meticulous except of oath’ explain this subject. An especial significance and place of meticulous and fiduciary isn’t hidden for anybody. An important issue about the concept of meticulous is inexistence of bordering in an accurate way. This vacuum, explaining about meticulous, is observable especially in different article of civil law. In this research, the writer in assimilation way and the style of searching in legal texts and legal opinions, answers this question that (what does meticulous mean?). (What are the differences between the demonstration and proving in fulfillment of meticulous’ concept?) It seems that absolutely meticulous in demonstration isn’t be permitted, and also in proving meticulous will be responsible, if it is famous for its trustee.

According to the law on the Implementation of Financial Convictions, approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly on 15/7/1393 and the Expediency Council on 23/3/1394 imprisonment is one way to achieve financial right, but in addition to the request of plaintiff and adoption of the court, it is necessary extra conditions. Authority of the court and plaintiff is not absolute. In addition, it is exceptional and In case of doubt, the general principle rules should be applied.In addition, the term of imprisonment is not specified. Identifying the nature of insolvence requires identifying type of confrontation to wealthy that is confrontation between inexistence and potency.However the definition of the legislator in article 6 and its note, as well as the admission for installment in Article 11, indicates that the legislature does not have same attitude .Moreover this article does not comply with the petition for insolvency or wealthy in Article 7 and the recent article also has conditions for proof of insolvency that is criticized.

Iran's legislator, in  2013, for the first time provided the "conflict of evidences in prove of criminal proceeding" in some articles of Islamic Penal Code. In this respect without mention of occurrence terms, some cases of conflicts of evidences are mentioned, and some measures are provided. Although this matter is applicable as the first step to formalization of this conflict, whether in occurrence term or transitional solutions, it depends on jurisprudential-legal notions about conflict of proofs of inference as the root of conflict principles. So, this research in a descriptive-analytical manner seeks to study these point of views, and their convergence or divergence against conflicts of evidences of substantiation of claim. The findings shows that required terms of this conflict, whether for inference of religious laws or on evidences of substantiation of claims are the same; however solutions need more consideration in proof of criminal claim than procedure of inference of religious laws.

One of the fundamental rights of consumers in relation to vendors of manufactured goods is the right to cancel a transaction or sue for exhibitory action, i.e. claim damages, in case the merchandise is defective. Therefore, in case the actual merchandise to be sold is not seen in a transaction (Kolli Felzammeh),and the supplied merchandise is proved to be defective, the customer is entitled to a replacement. Moreover, if the defective merchandise or service causes a harm to the consumer because of the said defect, the injured party is entitled to ask for compensation. Such a legal action would of course be contingent upon proof of defect. In the Iranian Civil Law, based on Imamie School, the merchandise is assumed to be in a condition of integrity at the time of the agreement. In case of a conflict, this principle requires the customer to be the claimant and the vendor to be the denier. Accordingly, the customer is required to prove that the merchandise was defective at the time of the agreement and that it belonged to the vendor. In line with contemporaneous situations and advanced legal systems, the Iranian Consumer Rights Protection Act (CRPA) of 2009 intends to restrict the Principle of Integrity of Merchandise. In the relationship between suppliers and Consumer; the contract does not presume the integrity of the merchandise. Rather, the statutory presumption is that the merchandise is defective, and it is the vendor who must prove the contrary, and the integrity of the merchandise.