Memorization wisdom and logic of the oath, in the case of the deceased (heirs of deceased), mandatory or optional nature of the oath of the claimant, the possibility or impossibility refused to read it, and why each current or non-current principle Rooming, legal status of the child, Crazy absent, see the proof of claims with and without resorting to swearing, fighting or the official documentation, such as issues surrounding Memorization oath that makes motivated the authors to investigate and critically analyzing Memorization oath, and the need to amend the 1333 Act civil. This result was obtained by analyzing the issue, by Memorization to convince the judge, and the removal of doubts, he explained religion, because the deceased was not in self-defense, and that even if it was alive, his acquittal evidence presented out.. Hence if the reasons adduced by the applicant or the defendant's statements, the defendants, the judge fixed the survival of religion is, fixing the oath Memorization do not cancel. On the other hand, the criterion Memorization oath, in the case of the child, and the Hidden crazy, but I swear it Rooming against the current, and the proof issues with Evidence no need for another reason, to prove the exceptional figures there is, and can not be used, by the issue of unity and sentence passed on the matter to the matches, so the legislator should amend Section 1333 Q.M, the importance of the oath, in the latter case, the his nose. , On the other hand, Article 1333 Q.M, about the need to swear Memorization, in the case of documentary quarrel official document, the applicability of Article 278 Q.A.d.m, which is necessary in both cases admitted in conflict, is. It seems, that the will of the legislator's position Article 278 Q.A.d.m, which is more logical than the official document, the logical question is, how many died during the life of its provisions do but to prove his heirs have access.