Validity of Testimony, Its Conditions, and Evidentiary Value in Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

Abstract

Testimony is considered one of the essential pillars for proving claims within the judicial system. Testimony refers to the statements made by a third party who has knowledge about the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event and communicates this knowledge before a judicial authority. For a person's testimony to be admissible, specific conditions must be fulfilled. The primary aim of this study is to examine witness testimony in the context of Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. The research method is analytical and document-based. The tools employed include note-taking and data extraction from legal and jurisprudential sources. The findings indicate that, according to the Islamic Penal Code, if a witness retracts their testimony before the punishment of the accused or offender is carried out, that testimony loses its legal validity and is no longer admissible. In other words, the judge cannot issue or execute a verdict based on such a testimony. The results of the study further show that, regarding the criterion for evaluating the probative value of testimony, two main theories exist among global legal systems. According to the first theory, witness testimony is considered substantive in the proof of civil claims. According to the second theory, testimony serves merely as an instrument or means for establishing facts in the judicial process and possesses an indicative (non-substantive) function in reaching the truth of the matter. Consequently, a judge is not obligated to render a decision solely based on witness testimony and retains the discretion to rule according to it only if it aligns with their personal knowledge and conviction.