The full citizenship is achieved when citizens' rights are being protected and secured primarily by the state. Ensure the public's right is exclusive of the Judiciary, externalized through adjudication. Any barriers that may impede or prevent access to judicial protection is a denial of justice and, consequently, the denial of citizenship itself.
The state does not allow to do by itself justice itself.
So, it has to provide to the society the means by which justice can be achieved, in order that citizens are able to use the Judiciary.
This is the necessary condition have to ensure full citizenship.
Citizen and legal persons have rights for legal representation for the rights claimed and rights violated. There is also an understanding of representation by law in the Civil procedure. The scope of this kind of representation extends to those with no or limited legal capacity, missing and deceased persons. Therefore, the legal representation and legal aid for the indigent shall be categorized on
voluntary basis or by agreement Majorities of the people seeking free legal aid are indigent persons in the housing dispute, and are required to leave the premises or with the claim of unfair loss of jobs.
Providing free legal aid for the indigent in civil cases is regulated by the regulation on “Covering the legal aid fees for the indigent from the state budget and its accounting practices”.
Similar to the criminal case, indigent person, not capable of paying fees to the lawyer, shall inform the court about the need for legal representation and a judge shall inform the local council of advocates with the request for an advocate to represent the person. The indigent person shall obtain proof of indigence from the related soum, district, bagh or horoo governor. Judge shall, upon such confirmation, fill the form for eligibility of the free legal aid to be funded from the state budget, and deliver it to the court accountant.
An advocate for the indigent is appointed by the local aimag or city council of advocates and since there is not regulation for selecting an advocate, it is done fully by the virtue of the council. This shows that there is a violation to the rights of free selection of an advocate. Advocate provides variety of legal aid services, such as:
- Give consultation, information and research on legal matter, drafting legal documentation, give opinion on such legal documents;
- Represent at the court on civil cases;
- Provide other legal help for the needs of individuals and organizations (writing bylaws,registering corporations)
The indigent are eligible for free legal aid in the civil proceedings (initial and appeal courts). There areno restrictions in laws or in regulations to exercising these rights. However, there is no data on how the indigent use their right and opportunity in the first instance and appellate courts. It can be observed that the rights of the indigent for free legal aid are more limited at the appellate court.
All laws need to be interpreted, and ambiguities and uncertainties are inevitable. There are two ways of dealing with this. The first is to try to specify every detail. The second is to emphasize the purposes of legislation and the principles underlying it as a guide to interpretation by the individuals who are expected to follow it and the judges who maybe called on to adjudicate it. Modern practice is increasingly emphasizing the latter while never eschewing the former.
The proposed search for justifications of Court of Justice provides values that can inform the principles of the laws that govern those institutions. Such values provide the key to synchronizing them with ethical standard setting and institutional reform. To do this, the principles underlying new and existing legislation should be clearly stated and the text of the legislation considered to ensure that it is consistent with those principles.
The independence of a Judge has necessarily to emerge from the Constitution. And then, the old question again – Who watch the guardians - interpreters of the law?
Judges perform a critical role in integrity systems. However, the reasons for the appointment of one judge over another are rarely public and sonetimes partisan. There are four safeguards against 'stacking'. The first is the possibility of appeal and reversal against decisions made -always a potential embarrassment as well as defeating the purpose of 'stacking'. This safeguard is, of course, non-existent in ultimate appellate courts. The second safeguard is the tenure of judges. Even here there can be problems where judges can be 'promoted' to another court. The third is that judges are joining a collegial institution where the opinion of their fellow judges is important to them. This works very well where judges have been appointed by different governments with different preferences and, especially, where they have appointed individuals with strong independent views. However, where a government holds power for a long time, stacking becomes a real possibility and the abovementioned safeguards are neutered. The fourth safeguard is that their decisions and reasons given are public. While few members of the general public read them, barristers do and judges are generally very keen to be thought to have integrity and ability by those who appear before them. This may seem ironic given the formally obsequious way in which barristers address the bench in many jurisdictions. However, in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, they appear very keen on the respect of their former peers.
The full citizenship is achieved when citizens' rights are being protected and secured primarily by the state. Ensure the public's right is exclusive of the Judiciary, externalized through adjudication. Any barriers that may impede or prevent access to judicial protection is a denial of justice and, consequently, the denial of citizenship itself.
