المباني النظرية للقاعدة عند تعارض الأمارات في الإثبات القضائي : دراسة مقارنة بين الفقه القضائي الإمامي و فقه القانونين الإيراني و العراقي

Abstract EN

This article studies the prompt solutions when there is a conflict in the judicial and legal Amarat.

It addresses the theoretical and practical application of such solutions from three perspectives, specially when there is no previous study that addresses such an important topic.

The article starts by presenting the main points of our research, and then highlights in details the conflict in the judicial and legal Amarat through 1) laying out the terms used in the Imami jurisprudence and the Iranian and Iraqi civil laws, and presenting their differences, and 2) specifying the differences of its role in the judicial and legal evidences in the judicial proof.

The article discusses the theoretical foundations in considering Amarat for judicial proof and interprets the underlying base when it prompts a conflict from three points of view.

This will compare the underlying bases when there is an inter-conflict between two kinds of Amarat and an intra-conflict between the Amarat of each kind.

The article concludes that there is a similarity between the three legislations in promoting one Amarah over another, that is, by investigating reality to the best extent or judicial separation, seeking justice.

One should mention that Iranian law is based on the Imami jurisprudence.