The role of the oath in judicial proceedings
Abstract
Civil legal legislation has enacted procedures that must be followed in civil disputes, including the oath, but the matter is different in criminal and administrative procedures. The procedures for which we did not find specific legislation, and one of the most important of these procedures is the provisions of the oath in those judicial procedures that are necessary due to their importance in proof, and may resolve the dispute between the litigants, so it was called a decisive oath. Therefore, we have to take the position of the Iraqi legislator in such cases. Thus, the Iraqi legislator indicated in State Council Law No. 65 of 1979 amended in the eleventh paragraph of Article 7 of it to the application of procedural laws, including Evidence Law No. 107 of 1979, as amended in what was not mentioned in a text It is clear that this paragraph did not require the consistency of the aforementioned rules of evidence with the nature of administrative or penal disputes. The same applies to the Iraqi State Employees Discipline Law No. 14 of 1991, as amended, as it did not refer to the application of the provisions of a specific law in administrative investigation procedures, and here it is necessary to refer to other branches of law, such as the application of the Civil Procedures Law No. 83 of 1979, as well as the Code of Trial Procedures Criminal No. 23 of 1981. The question that arises is: What is the role of the oath in administrative and criminal judicial procedures? Is it considered a means of proof before the administrative and criminal courts? Is the oath directed to witnesses or parties to the dispute in the administrative and criminal courts? As is the case in civil disputes for which special legislation and laws have been established. Therefore, we will discuss the role of the oath in civil, administrative and criminal judicial procedures as follows:
