Lawyer Badr Al Rabee
Corruption in the inference of the law indicates the existence of a defect or weakness in the way in which the evidence is analyzed or the application of legal rules to reach a certain result. This occurs when the judicial decision is based on irrational conclusions, or when the evidence used is insufficient or inappropriate to support the ruling.
Examples of corruption in reasoning include:
Dependence on non -evidence assumptions.
Ignoring fundamental evidence that can change the result of the ruling.
– Mispearment or application of legal texts in a way that leads to a wrong conclusion.
– bias or biases in analyzing facts or evidence.
Corruption in reasoning may affect the justice of judicial rulings, which is something that judicial systems seek to avoid by enhancing the criteria for the correct interpretation of evidence and the proper application of laws.
As for the deficiencies in the reasoning, it indicates the deficiency or defect in clarifying the reasons that the court relied on in its ruling. In other words, palaces occur when the judgment is not explained or justified adequately allowing the foundations on which the decision is built.
– The most prominent manifestations of shortcomings:
– The lack of a clear logical justification: when the ruling does not include a sufficient explanation of how the court concludes the result.
– Forgiving to address fundamental points: Ignore or not responding to important defenses or evidence provided by one of the parties.
The mystery of the causes: When the aforementioned causes are unclear or full of contradictions.
This deficiency may lead to the appeal of the ruling before the courts of appeal or discrimination, as the guarantee of clarity of the reasons is a basic principle for achieving justice and enabling the parties to understand the foundations of the ruling.
