نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اقتصادی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
امروزه در عمل قضاوت به یاری قرینه‌ها صورت می‌گیرد و لذا به‌نظر می‌رسد که تهیه مقدمات نظریه و نظریه‌سازی در این‌باره ضرورت دارد. در عین حال به انگاره کمابیش همگان تفاوتی میان قرینه و اماره وجود ندارد اما به‌نظر می‌رسد میان اماره و قرینه در فرآیند اثبات دعوا (اعم از کیفری، مدنی و اداری) تفاوت وجود دارد. قرینه‌ها در مرتبه پایین‌تری از اماره‌ها قرار دارند. امری که هر چند نویسندگان حقوقی در نظر به آن کم‌تر التفات یافته‌اند اما دادرسان و کارآگاهان در عمل آن را بسیار به کار بسته‌اند، که البته شایسته است این به کارگیری تا سطح معرفت نظری نیز ارتقاء یابد. این نوشته تحلیلی، توصیفی و انتقادی در جهت تعیین جایگاه قرینه در نظام اثباتی دلایل است و بر آن است که ضمن تفاوت آن با اماره و تعریف قرینه و انواع آن (قرینه دور، قرینه نزدیک) ارزش اثباتی آن را در مراحل مختلف دادرسی‌های کیفری، مدنی و اداری با بهره‌گیری از آرای قضایی بحث کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Role of Indices in Evidence Law: Implications for Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Cases
نویسنده [English]
- Badie Fathi
Assistant Professor, Private and Economic Law Group, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
This article delves into the distinct roles and implications of indices in evidence law within civil, criminal, and administrative lawsuits. While Iranian myths and epics, such as the story of Siavash and the Prophet Joseph in the Quran, exemplify the use of presumptions and indices as evidence, there has been limited scholarly focus in Persian on the differences between these two concepts. This paper aims to analyze these concepts, clarify their respective functions, and explore their impact on legal proceedings. Despite the legislative tendency to conflate indices with presumptions, it is important to recognize that they hold different positions within the hierarchy of evidence.
Historically, presumptions and indices have served as evidence in judgments, suggesting their long-standing use in various legal systems. However, Persian literature lacks an in-depth analysis of how these concepts differ from traditional forms of evidence. This article seeks to fill that gap by exploring the terminologies involved and their specific applications in lawsuits. Although legislators often pair indices with presumptions, a distinction exists: indices do not carry the same weight as presumptions.
Literature Review
In Persian legal literature, numerous books on evidence law explain the probative value of presumptions. Dr. Nasser Katouzian, for example, has written articles on the subject in the Journal of Law and Political Science (Summer 2004, University of Tehran, pp. 125-154). However, there is little discussion of the distinction between presumptions and indices, nor an exploration of the probative value of indices.
Materials and Methods
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizes library research methods to examine the relevant data. The aim is to assess the differences between presumptions and indices, analyze their respective roles in legal proceedings, and discuss how these differences affect the application of evidence law in practice.
Results and Discussion
Today, judicial decisions—particularly in criminal procedures—often rely on indices. This widespread use of indices underscores the need for a deeper theoretical analysis of their function. While many assume that there is no meaningful difference between indices and presumptions, it becomes evident that these two concepts differ significantly within the law of evidence. Indices are ranked lower than presumptions in terms of their evidentiary value.
Although legal scholars have paid comparatively little attention to this distinction, indices have been extensively utilized in practice by judges and investigators. This practical usage warrants a more comprehensive theoretical understanding. This article aims to clarify the position of indices within evidence law, compare them with presumptions, define indices and their types, and explore their value at various stages of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.
Conclusion
A presumption is generally comprised of two or more indices. Indices are ranked lower than presumptions in the hierarchy of evidence, and, like presumptions, they can be categorized into indices of facts and indices of law. Unlike presumptions—whether rebuttable or irrebuttable—indices can always be rebutted.
The identification and evaluation of both indices and presumptions depend heavily on the judge’s experience, intelligence, and expertise in the relevant field. To protect legitimate rights and freedoms, as well as uphold the presumption of innocence (a legal principle stating that every person should be considered innocent until proven guilty), it is advisable to avoid treating a single index as a presumption. Generally, a claim should not be proven with only one index but rather through a combination of two or more indices.
In some cases, such as when the law specifies that certain documents or business records must be provided as positive evidence, or in family law cases where a husband's refusal to take a drug test is used as evidence to support his wife's claims, indices may play a crucial role. In such scenarios, failure to provide the relevant document or an unreasonable justification for not taking the drug test can serve as indices that influence the court’s decision.
Indices function differently at various stages of legal proceedings. In criminal cases, indices can justify actions such as arraignment, arrest, and the issuance of search warrants. However, until an index rises to the level of a presumption and convinces the judge’s conscience, it cannot lead to a conviction.
In civil and administrative cases, indices that do not reach the level of a presumption may establish urgency in issuing provisional orders, suspending execution, or delaying the enforcement of a judgment. However, they cannot result in a final judgment convicting the defendant. It is important to note that legislators have occasionally misapplied indices and presumptions in legal statutes. Such errors can impact the fairness and clarity of legal proceedings, highlighting the need for a more refined understanding of these concepts within the legal system.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Evidence Law
- Presumption
- Indices
- Witness
- توکلی، سعید، «جایگاه امارات در سیر دادرسی»، مجله دادرسی، شماره 149، (1384).
- جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر، ترمینولوژی حقوق، چاپ نهم، (تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش، 1377).
- دورانت، ویل، تاریخ فلسفه، ترجمه عباس زریاب خویی، چاپ سی و سوم، (تهران: انتشارات علمی- فرهنگی: 1402).
- ساعی، سیدمحمد هادی، ثقفی، مریم، «بررسی اعتبار نظریه کارشناس از منظر فقه و حقوق»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، دوره 77، شماره 83، (1392).
- قرجه‌لو، علی رضا، «ادله وقایع مشابه و ادله پیش زمینه درحقوق کیفری ایران و انگلیس»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره 39، شماره 3، (1388).
- کاتوزیان، ناصر، اثبات و دلیل اثبات، جلد اول، (تهران: نشر میزان، 1380).
- کاتوزیان، ناصر، «ماهیت واژه اماره حقوقی»، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، شماره 64، (1383).
- معین، محمد، فرهنگ فارسی معین، جلد نخست، چاپ هیجدهم، (تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر، 1380).
ب- عربی
- الشیخ المرتضی الانصاری، المکاسب، ج2، تراث الشیخ الاعظم، (اصفهان: مرکز القائمیۀ باصفهان للتحریات الکمبیوتریۀ، 1281 ق).
پ- انگلیسی
- Plous, Scott, The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (US: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1993).
ت- فرانسوی
- Lebeau, Martin, De l'interprétation stricte des lois: Essai de méthodologie, Thèse de doctorat, (Paris: Pierre-Yves Gautier, 2007).
- Mustapha Mekki, “Charge de la preuve et présomptions légales L’art de clarifier sans innover”, Droit & Patrimoine, Nº. 250, (2015).
- Perelman et P. FORIERS, Les Présomptions et Les Fictions en Droit, (Bruxelles: ÉTABLISSEMENTS ÉMILE BRUYLANT, 1974(.
- Etienne Vergès, “Géraldine Vial”, Olivier Leclerc Droit de la preuve, é Puf, n°232, (2022).
- Claire quétand-finet, Les présomptions en droit privé, IRJS Editions, (Sorbonne: IRJS, 2013).
- Gwendoline LARDEUX, Répertoire de droit civil, Preuve: modes de prevue, (Paris: Dalloz, 2019).
- Robert Joseph Pothier,Traité des obligations, 1764, (Ferench: Dalloz, 2011).
- Jean Domat,Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel: le droit public, et Legum delectus, (A Paris: Chez, 1703).
ث. دادنامه
- شعبه 26 دیوان عالی کشور، 9209970909900304-26 دیوان عالی تاریخ 20/08/1392.
- شعبه 22 دیوان عالی کشور،دادنامه شماره 9209970908200302تاریخ 30/10/1392 .
- شعبه اول دیوان عالی کشور،9209970906100826-1 تاریخ 23/09/1392 فرجام خواسته دادنامه شماره 00158-8/2/92 صادره از شعبه 24 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران.
- شعبه هشتم دیوان عالی کشور 9209970906800657-8 دیوان عالی فرجام خواسته: دادنامه شماره 92/176 صادره از شعبه 6 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان خوزستان.
- شعبه هشتم دیوان عالی کشور در دادنامه شمارۀ 9109970906800865 فرجام خواسته به شماره: 91/700351 صادره از شعبه: 47 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران.
- شعبه هشتم دیوان عالی کشور، دادنامه شمارۀ 9209970906800677-8 دادنامه فرجام خواسته، شمارۀ 9109975416401260- صادره از شعبه 4 دادگاه تجدیدنظر- سیستان و بلوچستان.
- شعبه هشتم دیوانعالی کشور، دادنامه شمارۀ 9209970906800653-8 دادنامه فرجام خواسته شمارۀ 9209970224500207- 18/2/92 صادره از شعبه 45 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران.
- شعبه 17 دیوان عدالت اداری، دادنامه شماره 9109970901702887 تاریخ 9/10/1391.
- شعبه 31 دیوان عدالت اداری،دادنامه شماره 9209970903100291 تاریخ 7/02/1392 .
- شعبه 30 دیوان عدالت اداری در دادنامه شماره 9209970903000763 تاریخ 18/03/1392.
- شعبه سوم دادگاه حقوقی همدان،دادنامه شماره 714 ـ 28/5/91.
- شعبه 4 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان همدان،دادنامه شماره 809 ـ 29/7/91.
- شعبه دوم دادگاه انقلاب اسلامی اصفهان دادنامه شماره ۹۸۰۹۹۷۰۳۶۷۳۰۰۷۸۱ ـ ۱۳۹۸/۹/۲۵.
- شعبه 5 دادگاه حقوقی زاهدان دادنامه شمارۀ 8909975410501722-5 ح. زاهدان.
- شعبه 22 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران، دادنامه شماره 9309970222200559 به تاریخ 30/04/1393.
- شعبه 53 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران، دادنامه شمارۀ 9509982685201488 به تاریخ 25/10/1395.
- شعبه 54 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران 9409970225800423 به تاریخ 25/07/1394.
ج. سایت‌ها
- https://lib.eshia.ir.
- https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
- https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
- https://mustaphamekki.openum.ca.
- https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
In Persian
- Tavakoli, Saeed, “The Place of the Emirates in the Process of Litigation”, Litigation Journal, No. 149, (2005). [In Persian]
- Jafari Langroodi, Mohammad Jafar, Legal Terminology, 9th Edition, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications, 1998). [In Persian]
- Durant, Will, History of Philosophy, Translated by Abbas Zaryab Khoei, 33rd Edition, (Tehran: Scientific-Cultural Publications: 1402). [In Persian]
- Saei, Seyed Mohammad Hadi, Thaqafi, Maryam, “Investigating the Validity of Expert Theory from the Perspective of Jurisprudence and Law”, Litigation Journal, Vol. 77, No. 83, (2013). [In Persian]
- Qarjehlou, Ali Reza, “Evidence of Similar Events and Background Evidence in Iranian and English Criminal Law”, Quarterly Journal of Private Law Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3, (2009). [In Persian]
- Katouzian, Naser, Proof and Reason for Proof, Vol. 1, (Tehran: Mizan Publications, 2001). [In Persian]
- Katouzian, Naser, “The Nature of the Word "Emareh" Legal”, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, No. 64, (2004). [In Persian]
- Moein, Mohammad, Moein Persian Dictionary, Vol. 1, 18th Edition, (Tehran: Amirkabir Publications, 2001). [In Persian]
Judgment
- Branch 26 of the Supreme Court, 9209970909900304-26 of the Supreme Court dated 08/20/1392. [In Persian]
- Branch 22 of the Supreme Court, Judgment No. 9209970908200302 dated 10/30/1392. [In Persian]
- Branch 1 of the Supreme Court, 9209970906100826-1 dated 09/23/1392 Appeal of Judgment No. 00158-8/2/92 issued by Branch 24 of the Court of Appeal of Tehran Province. [In Persian]
- Branch 8 of the Supreme Court 9209970906800657-8 of the Supreme Court Appeal of: Judgment No. 92/176 issued by Branch 6 of the Court of Appeal of Khuzestan Province. [In Persian]
- The Eighth Branch of the Supreme Court in Case No. 9109970906800865 Appeal No.: 91/700351 issued by Branch: 47 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal. [In Persian]
- The Eighth Branch of the Supreme Court, Case No. 9209970906800677-8 Appeal No. 9109975416401260- issued by Branch 4 of the Court of Appeal- Sistan and Baluchestan. [In Persian]
- The Eighth Branch of the Supreme Court, Case No. 9209970906800653-8 Appeal No. 9209970224500207- 18/2/92 issued by Branch 45 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal. [In Persian]
- Branch 17 of the Administrative Court of Justice, case number 9109970901702887 dated 9/10/1391. [In Persian]
- Branch 31 of the Administrative Court of Justice, case number 9209970903100291 dated 7/02/1392. [In Persian]
- Branch 30 of the Administrative Court of Justice in case number 9209970903000763 dated 18/03/1392. [In Persian]
- Branch 3 of the Hamadan Legal Court, case number 714 - 28/5/1391. [In Persian]
- Branch 4 of the Hamadan Provincial Court of Appeal, case number 809 - 29/7/1391. [In Persian]
- Branch 2 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Isfahan, case number 9809970367300781 - 25/9/1399. [In Persian]
- Branch 5 of the Zahedan Court of Law, case number 8909975410501722-5, Zahedan District. [In Persian]
- Branch 22 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal, case number 9309970222200559 dated 04/30/1393. [In Persian]
- Branch 53 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal, case number 9509982685201488 dated 10/25/1395. [In Persian]
- Branch 54 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal, 9409970225800423 dated 07/25/1394. [In Persian]
In Arabic
- Sheikh Mortada Al-Ansari, Al-Makasib, Part 2, Heritage of the Great Sheikh, (Isfahan: Al-Qa’imiya Center for Computer Investigations in Isfahan, 1281 BC). [In Arabic]
)