The paradox of "evidence method" and "policy of cover-up" in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Javad Soltani fard ¹

Seyed Omid Moosavi ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Motahari University, Tehran, Iran

² PhD student, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Shahid Motahari University, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/jfiqh.2026.97566.2138

Abstract

The Iranian criminal justice system faces a fundamental paradox in crimes against chastity: on the one hand, the "evidence method" and the judge's authority to discover the truth, and on the other hand, the "policy of cover-up" of Islam with very strict conditions (such as four confessions). This descriptive-analytical study seeks to answer the question of whether the "evidence method" and reliance on the judge's knowledge or digital evidence are inherently in conflict with the policy of cover-up? The findings show that the criminal policy of Islam in this area is based on protecting privacy and preventing the spread of prostitution, not on maximum detection of the crime. Jurisprudential documents (including the rule prohibiting search) and legal articles (such as Articles 102 and 172 of the Islamic Criminal Code) confirm the rule of "exclusive objectivity of evidence." As a result, the “evidence method” is irrelevant in this area, as it violates the policy of cover-up, leads to an invasion of privacy, and the possibility of unfair sentences. Loyalty to the principles of Islamic criminal law, even in the age of technology, requires adherence to the same narrow evidentiary frameworks.

Keywords

"؛ Objectivity of evidence"؛ methodology of evidence"؛ crimes against chastity"؛ evidence of proof"؛

"؛ knowledge of the judge"

Subjects

• Criminal jurisprudence

---