چکیده:
حل یک مجهول قضایی مستلزم حصول علم و معرفت نسبت به وقایع خارجی مرتبط و مؤثر در دعواست. دادرس برای نیل به معرفت و قناعت وجدانی نسبت به وقایع خارجی با یک فرایند روانی، منطقی و حقوقی مواجه است. ایجاد باور و اعتقاد صحیح برای دادرس از جنبۀ روانی مستلزم شناخت مبادی و مراحل تشکیل یک باور موثق است. دادرس در فرایند تحصیل باور و اعتقاد قضایی از جنبۀ روانی و منطقی تابع مقررات خاصی نبوده و فقط ملزم به رعایت اصول و قواعد عام معرفتشناسی است. این مرحله از فرایند دادرسی جزء مقولات معرفتشناسی است. پژوهش حاضر بهصورت تحلیلی و توصیفی درصدد است ضمن بررسی و تحلیل قواعد معرفتشناسی اثبات در دادرسیهای مدنی، روش رسیدن به اعتقاد و علم قضایی معتبر و عوامل مؤثر بر آن را از جنبۀ روانی و منطقی بررسی و واکاوی کرده و معیاری برای سنجش اعتبار و صدق اعتقاد قضایی ارائه نماید.
finding. According to Article 199 of the Civil Proceedings Law, the judge is
obliged to try to discover the truth and form the knowledge and belief
consistent with the outside world. The judge’s research scope and results are
determined and announced based on the judge’s basic and acquired beliefs.
Such beliefs are formed in the judge's mind and psyche under the influence
of the concepts existing in his/her mind as well as his/her skill in mental
imagery and application of logical arguments. However, intellectual
background, prejudices, emotional factors, or intuitional knowledge can
affect the formation of judicial beliefs in some cases. The judge's final belief
consists of several partial beliefs, all of which should be justified and honest
to cause the formation of a correct and realistic belief. Judicial beliefs must
be well-founded and strongly correlated with the outside world. Since
evidence is the connection ring of this correlation, a justified belief should be
The resolution of a judicially unknown matter requires acquiring knowledge
about the external facts affecting the relevant case. The judge may go
through a psychological, logical, and legal process for finding external facts
to achieve conscientious persuasion. The judge also needs to know the basics
and steps of forming a reliable belief before reaching a reliable belief.
During the process of gaining a judicial belief, the judge does not need to
psychologically and logically follow special regulations, but is only required
to observe the general principles and rules of epistemology. This stage of
proceedings is actually a matter of epistemology. This analytical-descriptive
study aimed to analyze the rules of the epistemology of proof in civil
proceedings, explores the ways to achieve a valid judicial belief and the
factors affecting it from psychological and logical aspects, and proposes a
criterion for measuring the validity and truth of judicial beliefs. The judge
uses declarative sentences, which may be either true or false because of their
nature, to express his/her knowledge of relevant matters as a form of judicial
analogy. Such declarative sentences indicate the judge’s mental image of
disputed issues obtained through a process of research and analysis for fact
evidence-based. Judicial beliefs must be established based on logical
thinking and reasoning because this process can reduce the risk of error or
fraud in the induction of unreal matters. Truth refers to the conformity of a
belief with the outside world's facts, and the judge can achieve a true belief
only through pieces of evidence. Nevertheless, this is not possible in all
lawsuits due to the difficulty of access to pieces of evidence and their
uncertainty in achieving the pure truth about disputed facts. Therefore,
judicial beliefs cannot be investigated from this viewpoint. Considering the
importance of this issue, articles 3 and 4 of the Civil Proceedings Law,
which emphasize the necessity of hostility settlement and encourage the use
of heterogeneous tools in terms of fact-implying probability, expect
appropriate and reasonable, not pure, conformity of judicial beliefs to the
outside world. Although one of the important tasks of judges is to try to
achieve judicial beliefs in pure conformity with facts, there is no definitive
criterion to verify the truth of judicial beliefs because of the limited access to
pieces of evidence and the varying degree to which they imply facts in the
outside world. It can be hence stated that the coherence of beliefs
constituting a judicial belief is a practical and reasonable criterion to
measure the apparent truth of that judicial belief. The partial beliefs obtained
in the fact finding process must create a special mental state for the judge to
convince him/her that external facts exist. As a threshold for deciding about
the verification of facts or “standard of proof”, this mental state is influenced
by two factors: confidence and caution