Practical Challenges in the Evaluation of Evidence: A Comparative Study in Iraqi Law, Iranian Law, and Imami Jurisprudence

Abstract

Abstract : This study examines the practical challenges faced by the civil judge in evaluating evidence in contemporary lawsuits, where proof is no longer confined to traditional testimony and written documents but has expanded to include technical presumptions and digital data, in a context characterized by complex facts, multiple parties, time pressure, and a high volume of cases. The importance and aims of the research lie in uncovering the nature of these challenges and their direct impact on the formation of the judge’s conviction and the protection of litigants’ rights, as well as clarifying the extent to which the existing legal and jurisprudential framework in Iraq and Iran can keep pace with these transformations, with a view to proposing legislative, institutional, and training-oriented reforms. The main question the study seeks to answer is what are the most significant practical challenges facing the civil judge in evaluating evidence in light of Iraqi and Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence. Methodologically, the research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach with a comparative dimension, by examining Imami jurisprudential texts in the chapters on the judiciary and proof, analyzing the provisions of the Iraqi Civil Procedure Code and the Iranian Civil Procedure Law and the rules governing traditional and modern forms of evidence, and drawing on selected judicial applications and contemporary legal studies. The study concludes that, first, the concept of evidence in this framework is broad and flexible, encompassing both traditional and digital forms whenever they generate reassurance in the judge’s mind and are of a lawful source, thereby granting the judge wide discretionary power that must be framed by clear procedural safeguards, and second, that the complexity of lawsuits, the congestion of evidence, and time pressure reveal a relative shortcoming in certain legislative and training frameworks, which calls for a thorough review to enhance the effectiveness of evidence evaluation.