A Comparative Study of the Validity and Evidentiary Value of Documents in the Legal Systems of Iran and the United States

Abstract

Documents constitute one of the most important forms of evidence in contemporary legal systems and play a central role in establishing legal relationships, recording obligations, and resolving disputes. The validity and evidentiary value of documents depend on several factors, including authenticity, attribution, compliance with legal formalities, relevance to the dispute, integrity of content, and probative strength. This study adopts a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach to examine the legal status of documents and the criteria governing their validity and evidentiary effect in the legal systems of Iran and the United States. In Iranian law, the distinction between official and ordinary documents constitutes the principal framework for determining their evidentiary consequences. Official documents enjoy special evidentiary privileges because they are prepared by competent public officials in accordance with legal requirements, whereas the validity of ordinary documents largely depends on establishing their authenticity and attribution. In American law, documentary evidence is assessed through a more differentiated structure involving relevance, authentication, admissibility, and probative weight. One of the most significant doctrines in this system is the Best Evidence Rule, which generally prioritizes the original document or a reliable reproduction when the contents of a writing, recording, or image are at issue. The comparison demonstrates that Iranian law places greater emphasis on formal validity and the institutional source of the document, while American law follows a more functional and sequential approach to documentary evidence. The expansion of electronic records has also challenged the traditional concept of originality, making criteria such as integrity, verifiability, source identification, and protection against unauthorized alteration increasingly important. The findings indicate that a clearer distinction between authenticity, admissibility, evidentiary value, and probative force could contribute to greater coherence in the Iranian legal framework governing documentary evidence.