The Exclusionary Rule in the Criminal Law of Muslim Countries and Common Law

Proof of criminal cases is based on the evidence obtained in the criminal process. In this regard, the rules of procedure may sometimes be violated in this process, in which case the legal validity of the obtained evidence has become one of the most important challenges of litigation proof systems. In the present article, through a descriptive-analytic method, this issue has been studied in the two countries under the legal system of Common Law, England and Canada, in comparison with the approach of Islamic countries. The study demonstrates that in some countries, such as Turkey, a strict theory of formal exclusion has been adopted, which leads to the absolute invalidity of such evidences. Conversely, in other systems, such evidences are valid, unless, in accordance with the substantial exclusion theory, as in Iraq, the judge finds that substantive laws have been violated, or, like Iran, consistent with the textual exclusion theory, the statute stipulates the invalidity of evidence. Meanwhile, some countries, such as Algeria, in a position analogous to the United Kingdom and Canada, have taken combined positions from the two perspectives of substantial and textual exclusion. It seems that according to the criteria of Islamic jurisprudence, taking into account certain standards, such evidences can be effectless in the judicial system based on authorized judges who are not fully qualified.