Feasibility study of citing illegal evidence to prove a crime in Iranian jurisprudence and law

Evidence of guilt is a fundamental issue in different legal systems, and it varies depending on whether the approach to proving a claim is a system of legal evidence or convincing a judge's conscience, but in both systems the basic issue is the legitimacy of reason; That is, the mere fact that it is legal is not enough, but it is necessary to study it with legitimate tools and methods.From the jurisprudential point of view, obtaining evidence through illegitimate means is forbidden, and the judicial system should not use any illegal method to prove a crime, but the validity of illegal evidence in proving a crime should be elaborated. In some cases, the method of education certainly destroys the reason for its validity, such as confessions obtained through torture, but in cases where this does not interfere with its discovery, due to the existence of different views, the subject is accurate and debatable. In Iranian law, despite the defensible legal developments that have taken place in the field of evidence and criminal proceedings, there is no explicit and decisive provision in this regard. In this research, in a descriptive-analytical method, we examine the effect of obtaining evidence through illegitimacy in the detection of crime, and in this regard, the arguments of the discussion are examined separately and finally, an independent view is expressed from a jurisprudential point of view. From a legal point of view, while explaining the existing laws, the approach of judicial procedure in this regard is evaluated.