A Comparative Study of the Conditions and Effects of the Conflict Between Official Documents and Other Evidence in Iranian and French Law

Abstract

The validity and significance of official documents in comparison with other types of evidence hold a crucial position in the legal systems of Iran and France, with distinct conditions and effects. These conditions can be examined in the conflict between official documents and witness testimony, the conflict between official documents and confession, and the conflict between official documents and private documents, each of which has different legal implications. These effects can be analyzed in terms of proving ownership, the economic impact of document registration on other types of evidence, increasing public revenue, enhancing investment, facilitating access to bank credit, boosting transactions, monitoring national territory, and economic planning. Unlike Iranian law, French law does not explicitly address the effects of conflicts between official documents and other types of evidence in its legal provisions; rather, this issue is mainly governed by judicial practice. According to the general rule in French law, the registration authority lacks judicial power and registers documents as long as they meet the necessary formal requirements. An official document enjoys credibility in relation to other forms of evidence. Consequently, it suffices for a transaction, upon which a seller bases a claim of ownership, to have been previously registered for that seller to subsequently register a new transaction with a buyer, provided that the new transaction also meets the required formal conditions for registration.