Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• ahmad haji deh abadi ¹
• amirhosain bahirahei ²

¹ استاد گروه کیفری و جرم شناسی، دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران،قم، ایران

² دانش آموخته دوره دکتری رشته حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی، گروه حقوق,دانشکدگان فارابی، دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران

Abstract

 The popular opinion among the Islamic jurisprudents about confession and testimony is that these two have sufficiency. In other words, if these pieces of evidence do not contradict the judge’s knowledge, they are valid and the judge must issue a verdict based on them both in civil and criminal matters. This article seeks to investigate the fact that not only confessions and testimony are not valid in the presence of contrary evidence, but their validity in criminal law is dependent on some kind of general public’s assurance or trust. Based on this, if the judge, despite the confession and testimony, concludes that the general public were not convinced by this evidence, that is not enough to issue a verdict. Relying on these pieces of evidence is valid as long as they lead to people’s trust or at least there is no suspicion as to the contrary.

Keywords

• Sufficiency of Evidence
• Instrumentality of Evidence
• Validity of Confession
• Validity of Testimony