Establishing the Jurisprudential Evidence for Considering Medical Test Results as Indicative Proof

Abstract

The jurisprudential means of proving a claim include testimony, oath, the judge’s knowledge, confession, written documents, swearing, and judicial presumptions (amārāt). Medical tests encompass a wide range of specialized skills and techniques which, through the use of advanced instruments and diverse scientific and technical analyses, can facilitate judicial proceedings and contribute to the discovery of facts in legal matters. Using a descriptive–analytical method, the present study elucidates and examines the jurisprudential status of the results of modern medical examinations—including DNA analysis, genetic identification, toxicology, autopsy, and psychological assessment—as presumptive evidence (amāra) in the process of proving claims within Imami jurisprudence. First, by examining the concept and structure of amāra in jurisprudence and distinguishing it from other forms of proof, the theoretical foundations for relying on modern scientific data are explored. Drawing upon authoritative jurisprudential sources, rational principles, and judicial practice, the study evaluates the possibility of considering these results as presumptive evidence in establishing judicial matters such as lineage, identity, suspicious death, and psychological status. The findings indicate that scientific developments and the necessity of uncovering the truth, even in cases where traditional texts are silent, have created grounds for accepting the evidentiary value of such specialized scientific findings, particularly among contemporary rational agents. In conclusion, after clarifying potential challenges and addressing opposing viewpoints, the study proposes guidelines for the precise and principled utilization of these medical test results within jurisprudential adjudication.