Withdrawal from Testimony, Denial after Confession, and Retraction of Oath after the Issuance of a Judicial Decision

Abstract

The issues of withdrawal from testimony, denial after confession, and retraction of an oath at any stage of judicial proceedings constitute significant legal matters. Statutory law has addressed certain aspects of these issues only briefly and in a fragmented manner, which has itself generated further ambiguities and may lead judges to uncertainty in decision-making or even result in the issuance of unjust judgments. This occurs despite the fact that classical Islamic jurisprudential sources have examined the dimensions of these matters more comprehensively. The legislator has deemed denial after confession inadmissible in civil matters; however, where it is proven that the confession was based on mistake, error, or justified excuse, the subsequent denial may be considered. Judicial practice has likewise generally rejected denial after confession. If, after taking an oath, the oath-taker declares that the oath was false, and no judgment has yet been issued on the basis of that oath, the court shall render its decision based on the individual’s confession. However, where a judgment has already been issued but the period for appeal remains open, it appears that the convicted party may seek appellate review relying on the confession of the oath-taker. Conversely, if the judgment has become final, it is not unlikely that a new claim may be brought for restitution of what the oath-taker wrongfully obtained, since in such circumstances the basis of the new action is the confession itself rather than the oath administered in the previous proceeding.