نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 استادیار دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی
2 دانشجوی دکتری فقه جزایی دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی
عنوان مقاله [English]
The witness himself directly testifies and testifies on it or by witnesses to the incident being informed of that event and testifying to his testimony. The one who witnesses the event and testifies about it, his testimony is the original testimony. And he himself bears witness, and the one who testifies to his testimony before the ruler is called his subordinate witness, and he himself is called the subordinate witness. Since the presence of the original witness is often overlooked, it is necessary to elucidate and expurgation this argument. Many jurisprudents have accepted testimony on the testimony by following of seven conditions as evidence to prove the claim; which have been explicitly stated and some have been stated in their phrases. But from the point of view of this research, there is no convincing reason for satisfying the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh conditions, so these conditions can be criticized and seem unnecessary. Famous reasons in support of the inadmissibility of testimony on the testimony of subordinate witnesses which is in expression is third-party testimony is also said to be defective and the credibility of the third testimony is defensible.