is stronger, and the circumstantial evidence clearer. If ownership is not established by it, he intimidates both parties in accordance with what the circumstantial evidence of their respective situations requires. He orders the witnesses to be brought, if possible, and sets a time limit for their arrival, during which he returns the two parties to mediation. If this results in a mutually agreed settlement, the ruling is confirmed on that basis, and he dispenses with hearing the testimony when the witnesses arrive. If no settlement is concluded between them, he pursues the investigation more thoroughly through their neighbors and the neighbors of the property.

The authority overseeing grievance cases has discretion during the investigation to adopt one of three measures, implementing whichever his independent legal reasoning leads him to, in accordance with the circumstantial indications and evidence of the parties’ situations. He may remove the property from the defendant’s possession and hand it to the claimant until evidence is produced against the claimant establishing a sale or release; he may entrust it to a trustee to hold it and preserve its proceeds for whoever is entitled to them; or he may leave it in the defendant’s possession, prohibit him from disposing of it, and appoint a trustee to manage its proceeds. The property remains under whichever of these three arrangements the authority overseeing grievance cases deems appropriate so long as he hopes for one of two outcomes: that the truth will become clear through investigation, or that the witnesses will arrive to testify. If hope of both outcomes is lost, he issues a final judgment between them. If the defendant asks that the claimant be required to swear an oath, he administers the oath to him at the defendant’s request, and this serves as the basis for judgment between them.

The second form is that his denial does not include an acknowledgment of the underlying cause, and he says: “This property belongs to me; this claimant has no right to it.” The testimony concerning the document against the claimant takes one of two forms: either testimony to his acknowledgment that he has no right to it, or testimony to his acknowledgment that it belongs to the defendant. The property is therefore left in the defendant’s possession and is not taken from him. As for prohibiting him from dealing with it and preserving its proceeds throughout the period of investigation and mediation, that is determined by the circumstantial evidence of their respective situations and by the independent legal reasoning of the authority overseeing grievance cases, as it deems appropriate between them, until judgment between them is established.

The third case is that the witnesses to the document opposing this claim are present, but their legal uprightness has not been established. The authority overseeing grievance cases takes into consideration, with respect to them, the three circumstances concerning the claimant that we mentioned above, and also examines his denial to determine whether it contains an acknowledgment of the underlying cause. It deals with the matter as explained above, relying on its independent legal judgment concerning the circumstantial evidence.

The fourth case is that the witnesses to the document are deceased, though their legal uprightness had been established. No legal consequence attaches to this except as a basis for mere intimidation warranting further investigation. In issuing a final judgment, he then proceeds according to whether the denial did or did not contain an acknowledgment of the underlying cause.

The fifth case is that the defendant counters the claimant’s claim with the claimant’s own handwriting in a way that would prove the claim false. The matter is handled as explained above with respect to handwriting, and the intimidation is assessed in light of the circumstantial evidence.

The sixth case is that a calculation appears in the claim showing that the claim is invalid. The matter is handled as explained above with respect to accounts, while the intimidation, investigation, and any prolongation of the proceedings are assessed in light of the circumstantial evidence. A final judgment is then issued once hope has been abandoned, thereby bringing the dispute to an end.