Critical analysis of the nature of imposed evidences in law of proving the claims

From one perspective, evidences in proving the claim in law are divided in two groups: persuasive and imposed evidences. Persuasive evidence is the evidence that judge has complete authority in accepting its contents. It affects in proving of claim only if the judge has convinced to its contents and has believed to its purport. Imposed evidence is effective in proving of claims apart from the judge’s belief; that is, the judge is bound to verdict on the basis of it, even if he has not been satisfied the imposed evidence. The concept of being imposed of evidences is related to judge’s belief and persuasion and the belief is one of the elements of realization of knowledge, which its formative foundations and quality of its establishment is studied in the philosophical issues such as theory of knowledge or epistemology. This paper criticizes the nature and concept of imposed evidence by using epistemological basics concerning the basis of belief, and acknowledges that this concept cannot be accepted and affirmed according to principle of symmetry in epistemology.