legal maxim

The maxim of Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam is a Latin phrase which literally means an argument based on ignorance. This acts like negative evidence before the Court of Law since there is no reason on which the proposed theory is based upon, it is all just assumptions. This maxim is usually applied in cases where it is impossible to prove any statement as true or false. If a theory is proposed by a party before the Court, it is their duty to prove that theory right, but in the case, there are no means to prove that theory wrong, the party may suggest it as a reason that the said theory is right. This method is not encouraged by the Courts and often the parties are urged to use other means in order to prove their statements before the Court of Law. The use of the phrase “innocent until guilty” comes from this maxim. According to the phrase, an accused cannot be treated as guilty of a crime until it is proved that the crime has been committed by them. The Law presumes that since the offences committed by the accused have not been proved beyond all doubts before the Court of Law, the accused has not committed such offences.

Ramadan v. Malta

The Court held that a person cannot be denied their Conventional Rights just based on some future uncertain expulsion.

Biao v. Denmark

The Court held that the use of the maxim of Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam is a logical flaw. It is based on the fallacy of ignorance and shall be discouraged.