Representative Confession Effect in Iranian Civil Proceedings

In criminal affairs of the law of most countries, including Iran, representation confession all is seen with skepticism. However, the countries that do not accept confession in criminal matters in any way, believe that confession is always to the detriment of the accused and the representative with his confession creates effortlessly further ado for the accused. But it is not always the case, because sometimes the lawyer may provide him the exemptions and the commutation of the sentence with his original confession to committing the crime. In article 205 of General and Revolutionary Courts Procedure Code (Civil Affairs) adopted in 2001, Conclusive confession has been appointed non-substitution. Conclusive confession is the one that a confessor accepts a demand that is asked in the column or it is the subject of the petition. Conclusive confession is against the confession of dispute proof preliminaries. Confession to the premises of the lawsuit will not end and will not accompany by accepting the claim. Basic reasons for this decision are: The original confessor, non-harmful confession against the other, the necessity of observing the interest of the client, the consensus of jurists etc., but none of these reasons can justify impossibility substitution of confession. Therefore, the article aforementioned was critical and its reformation is proposed. The main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of confession in civil proceedings in Iran; the research in this paper is organized as a library and survey method and it is based on analytical methods. First, the literature of the research is described and as a result, according to analytical findings, fundamental recommendations are proposed