Foundations and Objectives of the Evidentiary Guide in Iraqi and Iranian Civil Judiciary

Abstract

This study addresses the foundations and objectives underlying the Guide to Evidence in civil adjudication, with a comparative analysis of Iraqi and Iranian law, considering evidence as the instrument upon which the judge relies in forming judicial conviction and attaining judicial truth. It examines the rules governing the burden of proof and the practical consequences arising therefrom in determining the procedural position of litigants within the lawsuit, in addition to clarifying legal presumptions and their role in shifting or relieving the burden of proof. The study further discusses the principle prohibiting the judge from ruling on the basis of personal knowledge in Iraqi law as a safeguard for judicial impartiality and the protection of defense rights, in contrast to the Iranian approach, which accords the judge’s knowledge a significant role in shaping judicial conviction within legally prescribed limits. The research aims to highlight the balance between the judge’s discretion in evaluating evidence and the necessity of adhering to procedural controls that ensure justice, while analyzing the doctrinal and legal trends concerning the exclusivity of evidentiary means or their illustrative character. It concludes that the law of evidence constitutes the cornerstone of rights protection and the consolidation of confidence in the judiciary, and that the divergence between the two legislations reflects a difference in the philosophy of proof between a restrictive approach and one grounded in judicial persuasion.