چکیده:
There have been many discussions about judicial evidence in various legal systems, both in civil and criminal law, under the title of evidence of proof of claim. However, many ambiguities are still observed in the discussion of judicial evidence. Clarifying some of these ambiguities may be possible by logically explaining judicial evidence. In this regard, it is first necessary to define judicial and logical evidence so that it becomes clear that the nature of judicial evidence is the same as any other type of logical evidence from a substantive point of view. By clarifying this discussion, it is possible to understand whether the judicial evidence is certain, probable, or general, and to recognize the type of connotation from the types of conventional, rational, and natural connotation, and to separate the role of the legislator and the judge in judicial connotation. This article discusses these matters.
خلاصه ماشینی:
15 - With the above explanations regarding natural and rational evidence, it becomes clear that the scope of this type of indication is limited in our discussion, and usually the evidence in the discussion of evidence of proof of claim is of the type of conventional evidence, because in most cases the legislator has considered the existence of something as an indication of the correctness of the claim, and the judge issues his verdict by considering it, such as considering confession, testimony, documents, and oath as evidence based on the imposition of the legislator as an indication of the correctness of the claim, or the indication of assuming legal indicia for the correctness of the claim, such as possession as ownership, which is considered an indication of ownership in the view of the legislator (Article 35 of the Civil Code).
Therefore, it can be concluded that in most cases the legislator himself has considered the existence of something as an indication of a right, and in these cases, the indication of evidence is conventional, although the legislator has taken this step regarding all original evidence (confession, testimony, oath); but in special and exceptional cases that include subsidiary evidence (indicia), the judge is allowed to rule based on his own reason, which is rational indication, and natural indication can also be used in proving civil claims in specific cases and through forensic medical expertise.
(
, 
, 
)
