Examining the Conflict Between Judicial Presumptions

Abstract

Judicial presumption in the Iranian legal system is recognized as one of the most important instruments for proving claims and as an effective means of preventing judicial uncertainty in situations where conclusive evidence is absent or insufficient. Its flexibility, rational character, and reliance on a careful analysis of the circumstances and conditions of the case have enabled judicial presumptions to play a prominent role in generating confidence and forming the judge’s inner conviction, and in many instances to be invoked even as an independent form of evidence. An examination of jurisprudential, legal, and rational foundations indicates that whenever a judicial presumption gives rise to knowledge or sufficient assurance, it enjoys probative validity and may, like other recognized forms of evidence, play a decisive role in judicial proceedings. Given the persuasive nature of judicial presumptions, their evidentiary value depends on the degree of influence they exert on the judge’s mind. Accordingly, in cases involving a conflict between two or more judicial presumptions, the principal criterion of preference is the degree of probative force, technical strength, logical coherence, and consistency of each presumption with the circumstantial evidence and factual realities of the case. This criterion is accepted both in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and in the practice of rational agents. The findings of this study demonstrate that whenever one presumption possesses greater persuasive capacity, it should prevail over weaker presumptions.