نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناس ارشد حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه شمال، آمل، ایران.
2 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه شمال، آمل، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Judicial certainty, as a fundamental pillar for issuing verdicts in criminal matters, has always been a core subject in criminal jurisprudence. In the Iranian legal system, "judge's personal conviction" is recognized as one of the means of proof in criminal cases (Article 160 of the Islamic Penal Code, 2013), provided it is based on definitive and objective evidence (Article 211). These pieces of evidence, described as "bayyin" (clear/tangible), serve as the pathway to the judge’s conviction, while the conviction itself, alongside other primary evidence, holds substantive value (derived from Articles 160 and 161). In contrast, the French legal system is founded on the principle of the "intime conviction" (inner conviction) of the judge and jury, which must also arise from evidence presented during the trial (Article 427 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure). The Iranian system can be viewed as a hybrid of legal and moral evidence. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach to examine and contrast the role and status of "bayyināt"—tangible and objective evidence—as the primary grounds for judicial certainty in Iranian and French criminal law. The focus lies on analyzing evidence such as forensic reports, expert opinions, electronic evidence (video, audio, digital data), and witness/informant testimonies, while considering specific legal limitations, such as Article 102 of the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code in cases of sexual offenses. The objective is to elucidate how judges in both systems rely on such evidence, the scope of their validity, the challenges faced, and the points of convergence and divergence between the two systems in valuing this evidence as the foundation of judicial conviction or intime conviction. Findings indicate that, despite differences in theoretical foundations and the status of judicial conviction, both systems increasingly emphasize objective and scientific evidence as essential and reliable bases for judicial decisions.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)