Who determines liability when an act of Qisas (retaliation in kind) results in an alleged excess injury, and the injured party denies the excusable cause?

Primary text

If a person inflicting retaliatory injury exceeds the prescribed limit (in Qisas) and claims the excess occurred due to the movement (*idhtirab*) of the injured party, and the injured party denies this movement, the ruling favors the statement of the person against whom retaliation is sought (the inflictor). This is because the presumption is the absence of such movement, which would necessitate liability for the excess injury. This is analogous to scenarios where liability is negated by a defense, such as claiming injury was inflicted in self-defense, finding an animal already killed, or claiming an animal was aggressive when killed.