A Reflection on the Evidentiary Value of Judicial Presumptions

Abstract

Judicial presumption is recognized as one of the tools for proving claims within the Iranian legal system and holds a special position in the process of adjudication. Based on various studies, in some legal disputes, access to conclusive evidence may be extremely difficult or even impossible. Consequently, in order to prevent the violation of individuals’ rights, avoid judicial suspension, and fill this evidentiary gap to establish justice and fairness, the use of judicial presumptions is not only legitimate and authoritative but also essential, as it ensures judicial security. Judicial presumptions, due to their high degree of intelligence and flexibility, as well as their attention to the specific details of each case, allow for a thorough examination and analysis of all available evidence. By utilizing every tool at the judge's disposal for analysis and achieving precise conclusions, these presumptions enable the judge to reach a high level of certainty necessary for issuing a judicial ruling, making reliance upon them highly trustworthy. Relying on verses from the Qur’an, narrations, customary practice, and legal doctrines, it can be concluded that judicial presumptions—if they create sufficient certainty for the judge—may, under valid conditions, be independently used as evidence for proving claims, just like other means of proof. It can even be argued that the level of conviction derived from judicial presumptions is so strong that it transcends the status of mere presumption and becomes actual evidence. Therefore, the role of judicial presumption as evidence in achieving and enhancing judicial justice is undeniable.