Private Law
naser alidoosti shahraki; Ali Keshavarz; alireza sadeghi asl
Abstract
The development of electronic technology has led to the growth of economic and social relations in the context of electronic exchanges. Along with these Developments, the issue of ownership and validation of electronic documents and evidence has become more complex; therefore, it may not be possible ...
Read More
The development of electronic technology has led to the growth of economic and social relations in the context of electronic exchanges. Along with these Developments, the issue of ownership and validation of electronic documents and evidence has become more complex; therefore, it may not be possible to update the rules in each case of the advent of technology. Therefore, standardization for the attribution and accuracy of electronic evidence can provide the flexibility to update it. This issue needs to be met to assess the validity of electronic evidence. In Iranian law, the e-commerce law and the cybercrime law sporadically refer to some of these criteria, which include secure methods and safe methods as part of them. But what has been neglected is two issues: The separation of the authenticity of the document by the judiciary as a general procedure for proving security and authentication by an IT specialist as a specialized procedure. It is noteworthy that Assessing specialized procedures of proof by methods of assessing the method can be a step to improve the knowledge of the judge by the judicial authority by training and qualifying. With the research that was done, the use of the Lorraine standard and the examples of Article 901 of the Federal Evidence Law for the validity of general methods of proof and the use of the Daubert standard and the examples of Article 902 of the said law for measuring expert and self-help methods are introduced. On the other hand, due to the lack of separation of general and specific criteria in the Iranian Electronic Commerce Law, the defect of paragraph 2 of Article 2 governing paragraph 4 of paragraph H of the said Article and the need to separate it as an innovative research achievement to advance the knowledge of the judge is effective.
