Systematizing the Elimination of Conflicts of Evidence in the Principles of Jurisprudence

Abstract

Conflicts of evidence in the science of principles of jurisprudence are among the most important and complex issues in analyzing manifestations and discovering the serious intention of the legislator. Although the Usul tradition has provided rules for the preference of manifestations in the general and specific, absolute and restricted, and conflicting reports sections, an independent and systematic section that monitors all types of evidence (verbal, current, status, verbal, etc.) in the form of a hierarchical system has not been compiled. This research, with the approach of "Principles of Contemporary Jurisprudence" and based on the six-axis typology of evidence - origin (legal, rational, customary, sensory), power of influence (definite and presumed), form (literal, non-literal), connection and separation (connected, disconnected), semantic function (usage, specific, concept, personal, typical), and jurisprudential application (contextual and complementary) - seeks to design a hierarchical system to resolve the conflict of evidence. The main innovation of the research is in adding the axis of jurisprudential application as the connection point of the axes and designing a step-by-step algorithm to systematize the preference process; an algorithm that first resolves the unstable conflict with the customary plural and then, in the event of a conflict, the preference rules are applied based on the levels of authority, the potentiality of emergence, rational and religious preferences, and the contextual/complementary ratio. The findings show that this multi-layered framework not only elevates the conflict of evidence from the level of personal preferences to the level of scientific rules, but also has the ability to adapt to complex jurisprudential and contemporary issues.