Abstract

Proof of evidence is what enables the judge to resolve disputes that arise between the parties and are brought before him because they are considered essential matters to him. The judge’s goal behind this is to apply the law to everyone without distinction between them and to achieve justice so that he can deliver the right to its owner through evidential evidence. We can define proof legally as establishing evidence before the judiciary through the legally specified methods of the existence of an incident that resulted in it. This means that a right without proof has no legal value and is not considered before the judiciary because its owner is unable to prove it.
  The completed oath is an important means of proof in the Iraqi Evidence Law No. 107 of 1979 because it is an unusual method of proof that depends on the person’s conscience, his belief, the extent of his piety and fear of God Almighty, and the legitimacy of the oath has been proven by textual and rational evidence. Therefore, it is a religious and civil act whose goal is to confirm the aspect of honesty. On the side of lying.
The supplementary oath has a prominent importance in quickly resolving the dispute in cases with incomplete evidence. The importance of the supplementary oath also appears in reducing the effort and expenses of the opponents and the judge, i.e. eliminating the accumulation of the number of cases with incomplete evidence before the courts.