Judicial principles and studies
Opponent's Computer Outputs under Article 13(3)(d): Meaning
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opponent as ordinarily probative and places on that opponent the burden to show they were not produced or authenticated by them. The rule excludes outputs a party prepared to use as its own evidence.
Courts and procedure
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opponent as ordinarily probative and places on that opponent the burden to show they were not produced or authenticated by them. The rule excludes outputs a party prepared to use as its own evidence.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opposing party as carrying ordinary probative weight and places on that party the burden to demonstrate that those outputs were not extracted, authenticated, signed, or produced by someone on their instruction.
Summary
The provision does not apply to computer outputs a party prepared as evidence for itself; such self-produced outputs are not considered valid basis for a judgment, in line with the general rule that a party may not fabricate evidence. For example, a fingerprint disclosure issued by the defendant cannot be relied on against the plaintiff because it did not originate from the plaintiff. Note: This is an educational summary, not judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
In practice, courts will treat outputs attributed to the opponent as presumptively probative unless the opponent proves otherwise, whereas outputs prepared by a party to serve its own case cannot serve as a basis for a judgment.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
Article 13(3)(d) treats computer outputs attributed to an opposing party as carrying ordinary probative weight and places on that party the burden to demonstrate that those outputs were not extracted, authenticated, signed, or produced by someone on their instruction.
Summary?
The provision does not apply to computer outputs a party prepared as evidence for itself; such self-produced outputs are not considered valid basis for a judgment, in line with the general rule that a party may not fabricate evidence. For example, a fingerprint disclosure issued by the defendant cannot be relied on against the plaintiff because it did not originate from the plaintiff. Note: This is an educational summary, not judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance?
In practice, courts will treat outputs attributed to the opponent as presumptively probative unless the opponent proves otherwise, whereas outputs prepared by a party to serve its own case cannot serve as a basis for a judgment.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.