Conceptual Complex Confession in Iranian and French Law

If someone defending a claim says: “I have paid the creditor thecredit,” though the confession is not literally compound, its meaningconsists of two parts: one expressly indicated which is “paying thedebt” and the other implicit meaning which is “being in debt”. Nowthe question is whether in such cases – Conceptual complexconfession- the speaker admits his debt and is liable to pay the debt,unless he proves to reject the creditors claim, or no confession to debtis made. In other words, is it required, in such cases, to acceptdivisibility or indivisibility of confession? Famous Imamitejurisprudents have asserted the divisibility of the confession. Yet, thefamous theory is focused on in this article and it seems that theopinion is not accepted in Iranian Civil Code. One of the results of thisresearch is that, considering the Civil Code, the legal principles andjudicial precedents and some of the authentic jurisprudent opinions,the indivisibility of the confession is generally accepted and even noobjection is seen in the lawyers’ views and the case law. In Frenchlegal system as well as those of the Islamic countries, according tolegal texts, the lawyers’ opinions and also judicial precedents, the ruleof the indivisibility of the confession is accepted and, with theexception of the rare cases, it is prevented to divide the confession tothe detriment of the confessor. However, in the legal system of thesecountries, unlike that of Iran, there is a distinction between judicialand non-judicial confession and the indivisibility rule is limited tojudicial confession and in non-judicial confession, decision on the(in)divisibility is left to the judge to be made according to the generalrules of evidence.