Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor Faculty of Law and Political Sciences Allameh Tabataba'i Universit
Abstract
This article examines the distinct roles and implications of indices in evidence law within civil, criminal, and administrative lawsuits. While Iranian myths and epics like the story of Siavash or the tale of Prophet Joseph in the Quran illustrate the use of presumptions and indices as evidence, there has been little scholarly focus in Persian on the differences between presumptions, and indices. This paper aims to analyse these concepts and clarify their functions and impact in legal proceedings. Despite the legislative tendency to conflate indices and presumptions, they hold different places in the hierarchy of evidence.
In many ancient narratives, presumptions and indices have served as evidence in judgments, suggesting their long-standing historical use. However, Persian literature lacks a detailed analysis of how these differ from traditional evidence forms. This article addresses that gap by exploring the terminologies and their specific applications in lawsuits. Although legislators often pair indices with presumptions, a distinction exists: indices do not hold the same weight as presumptions.
Literature Review
In Persian, the books on evidence law have explained the probative value of presumption, and Dr. Nasser Katouzian has also written independent articles on the subject of evidence in the Summer 2004 issue of the Journal of Law and Political Science of the University of Tehran, pp. 125 to 154, but there is no discussion of the difference between presumptions and indices and the probative value of indices.
Materials and Methods
The study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and employs library research methods to examine the data.
Results and Discussion
Today, judicial decisions, especially in criminal procedure, are made with indices in most cases. Therefore, it seems that their analysis and explanation is also necessary in theory. While almost everyone thinks that there is no difference between indices and presumptions, but it seems that there are differences between them in the law of proof. Indices are in a lower order than presumptions. Although legal doctrines have paid less attention to it, judges and detectives have used it a lot in practice, which of course deserves to be promoted to the level of theoretical knowledge. This article aims to determine the position of the indices in the evidence law and it aims to discuss its difference with the presumptions and the definition of the indices and its types, the value of indices in evidence law in different stages of criminal, civil and administrative procedure.
Conclusion
Presumption itself consists of two or more indices. Indices are at a lower level than presumption and, like presumption, are divided into indices of Facts and indices of Law. Unlike presumptions (Rebuttable Presumption, Irrebuttable Presumption), indices can always be rebutted.
The identification and evaluation of indices and presumptions rely heavily on the judge's experience, intelligence, and knowledge in the relevant field. To protect legitimate rights and freedoms and uphold the presumption of innocence (the legal principle stating that every person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty or until the court believes the person is responsible for acts prohibited by law), it is advisable to assume that a single indices does not constitute a presumption. A claim should generally not be proven with just one indice, but rather from the combination of two or more indices. In situations where the law specifies certain matters, such as not providing the original document or business book as positive evidence, or in family proceedings where a husband's refusal to take a drug test is taken as evidence supporting the wife's statements, there appear to be additional possibilities: either not providing the document or the book related to the drug addiction test or giving an unreasonable justification.
However, indices have different functions at various stages of the trial. In criminal proceedings, indices can justify instances such as arraignment, arrest, and search warrants. But until an indice reaches the level of a presumption, convincing the judge's conscience, it cannot lead to someone being convicted as a criminal.
In civil and administrative proceedings, if the indices do not reach the status of presumption, they may only establish urgency in issuing provisional orders, orders to suspend execution, or to delay execution of a judgment, but cannot result in a judgment convicting the defendant.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that legislators have occasionally erred in the use of indices and presumptions.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- 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, éd. 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).
- 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]
)