A Jurisprudential and Legal Examination of the Necessity of Evidential Proof in Civil Proceedings

In the field of judicial proceedings, the pivotal role of "proof" in determining the fate of a case cannot be understated. A claim or assertion must be proven in a legal forum, otherwise its origins will remain inconsequential. Consequently, legal practitioners and judges dedicate a significant portion of their attention to the issue of proof, leading to the assertion that litigation revolves around the evidence. The process of proving a claim or defense relies on documents referred to as "evidence." While legal literature commonly distinguishes between "evidence supporting a claim" and "proving the evidence itself as admissible," this distinction is often overlooked. This paper examines the legal and jurisprudential aspects of the more familiar "evidence supporting a claim," examining how parties present and defend their cases with reference to these means. Moreover, it explores the less-explored dimension of "proving the evidence itself," where the evidence is presented as a separate entity in court.

Research Question:

The fundamental question that arises in this context is the rationale behind proving evidence and the justification for such a process. Legal claimants are obligated to present their evidence to the court to prove, raising the dichotomy of whether they possess the evidence or are hindered by its absence. In the former scenario, the claim is proven; in the latter, the claim faces the risk of dismissal for failure to provide proof. Thus, the inquiry emerges: why and on what grounds must one undertake the arduous process of proving evidence, and what prompts this multiplicity in the judicial proceedings?

Research Hypothesis:

In order to address this question, a hypothesis is put forward that it is necessary to prove the reason in a civil lawsuit, on the basis of justice, the obligation to preserve rights, and to adhere to the principle of contradiction. Each of these elements, independently or collectively, justifies the necessity of verifying the existence or realization of proof means. This hypothesis indicates that the legal and judicial system seeks to guarantee the fair and just resolution of disputes by observing the principles of proportionality in demanding proof. Furthermore, it is argued that this complex process acts as a safeguard, prevents the assertion of unfounded claims and promotes the efficient administration of justice.
     To address this question, a hypothesis is posited that the requirement to prove evidence in civil litigation is predicated on the basis of justice, the necessity to preserve rights, and to adhere to the principle of contradiction [Asl-e-Tanazor]. Each of these elements, independently or collectively, justifies the need for establishing the existence or realization of evidentiary means. The hypothesis suggests that the legal and judicial system, in demanding the proof of evidence, seeks to ensure a fair and just resolution of disputes, aligning with the principles of proportionality. Furthermore, it is asserted that this intricate process serves as a safeguard, preventing the assertion of unfounded claims and promoting the efficient administration of justice.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This research adopts a doctrinal approach, relying on an extensive review of Iranian legal scholars' works and the existing legal framework in the country. The methodology encompasses an exploration of relevant jurisprudential literature, analysis of applicable laws, and an examination of precedents to derive a comprehensive understanding of the necessity to prove evidence in civil litigation. The study aims to elucidate the impact of various factors, such as the unavailability of evidence due to justifiable reasons or the claimant's assertion that evidence once existed but is no longer accessible. By considering the specific conditions under which evidence may be challenging to present, the research seeks to provide insights into how the legal system accommodates such circumstances.
     In summary, this paper endeavors to shed light on the intricacies surrounding the requirement to prove evidence in the Iranian civil litigation system, offering a nuanced understanding for the benefit of a non-Iranian audience unfamiliar with the nuances of the country's legal landscape.

Typically, evidence supporting a legal claim is within the reach of the litigant, readily available for citation and presentation in court. However, scenarios arise where the evidence substantiating the subject matter of a claim is unavailable, making its presentation to the court unfeasible. Consequently, it becomes imperative for the evidence itself to be proven as a separate entity. In circumstances where accessing and presenting the primary evidence pose challenges, proving the evidence becomes an unavoidable precursor to substantiating the claim. The pivotal issue casting serious doubt on the path of proving evidence is that the establishment of a claim is contingent upon presenting evidence. Should the claimant prove incapable of providing evidence, the claim is perceived as groundless, hovering on the brink of nullity or dismissal. The meticulous process of proving evidence necessitates thorough foundations to justify this intricate and duplicative procedure in legal proceedings.
     One of the most significant underpinnings for this process is the concept of "Impossibility of Performance" [Ta'azzor] and [Ta'assor]. Rooted in Islamic jurisprudential principles such as the "Negation of Hardship" [Nafy-e-Osr va Haraj] and "Impossible Duty" [Taklif-e Ma'la'yotagh], it finds parallels in foreign legal doctrines like force majeure and the impossibility doctrine. Additionally, fundamental principles such as justice and upholding rights can be introduced to rationalize the proof of evidence. In certain cases, presenting the original evidence may be impractical due to potential obstacles. In such a scenario, if the evidence is abandoned, not only does justice remain unattained during the trial, but the judge encounters an impasse in establishing the truth. Recognizing the imperative nature of proving evidence for preserving the rights of litigants, accepting the burden of proof appears essential for fairness and justice to prevail. Thus, beyond merely avoiding obstruction and hindrance in proving legal claims, the concept of impossibility of performance becomes one of the compelling reasons for mandating the proof of evidence in civil procedural law. This is particularly evident when the testimony of a witness is contested, conflicts arise between primary and subsequent witness statements, or the need for local investigation arises. Moreover, instances of perjury and false testimony by a witness can significantly impact the proceedings, necessitating the judicial authority to independently seek and establish the proof of these circumstances. This proof, however, should be situated in a manner where the demonstrated evidence, though seemingly partial, significantly influences the outcome of the lawsuit.

In conclusion, the intricate process of proving evidence in civil litigation within the Iranian legal system serves as a fundamental safeguard against baseless claims, ensuring the administration of justice in a fair and equitable manner. The concept of "impossibility of performance" [Ta'azzor] and [Ta'assor] emerges as a critical factor justifying the proof of evidence, aligning with principles of justice, upholding rights, and maintaining a proportionate approach in legal proceedings. Beyond its function as a deterrent against false testimony, the necessity of proving evidence stands as a cornerstone for the effective adjudication of disputes, allowing the judicial system to navigate challenges and uphold the truth in the pursuit of justice. The acceptance of the burden of proof, even in the face of obstacles, is deemed indispensable for the preservation of justice and the rights of all parties involved.