👨‍⚖️Judiciary

Executive Summary

The Judiciary constitutes the sole authority vested with the capacity to adjudicate on matters pertaining to individual rights and obligations on a case-by-case basis. The judicial structure is comprised of the Supreme Court, serving as the apex judicial body, alongside a hierarchy of subordinate courts. This structure not only encompasses state-operated courts but also facilitates the establishment of private judicial forums. Such private courts operate on the basis of voluntary jurisdiction, allowing parties to opt for arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. The Supreme Court holds the ultimate adjudicatory authority, functioning as the terminal appellate body across all judicial forums within the jurisdiction.

The Jurisdiction

The judicial system of Liberland exercises comprehensive jurisdiction over all disputes arising within the territorial confines of Liberland, encompassing conflicts among Citizens, e-residents, and other entities. This jurisdiction specifically pertains to matters that fall under the aegis of Liberland's State sovereignty, including disputes related to land, vessels, and aircraft registered under the Liberland flag. Additionally, the Liberland judiciary is empowered to adjudicate other disputes should the parties involved designate Liberland as the preferred forum for resolution, such as in cases of arbitration.

Warrants and Final Decisions (Verdicts)

The Judiciary possesses the authority to promulgate two distinct categories of legal instruments:

Warrant: This legal act pertains to the articulation of rights and obligations of the disputing parties or relevant third parties prior to the adjudication of the dispute. The primary function of a Warrant is multifaceted, serving to safeguard the interests of crime victims, facilitate actions within criminal investigations that necessitate engagement with private property sans the owner's consent, and inhibit parties from dissipating their assets outside the ambit of Liberland's legal jurisdiction, among other purposes.

Verdict: This legal instrument constitutes the definitive resolution of a dispute, effectively supplanting any Warrants previously issued in relation to the matter at hand. It establishes (or, in certain instances, reaffirms) the rights and duties incumbent upon the disputing parties post-resolution.

The issuance of a Warrant thus acts as a provisional measure, ensuring the preservation of justice and the integrity of the legal process in the interim period leading up to the delivery of a Verdict, which conclusively determines the outcome of the dispute and delineates the resultant legal standings and responsibilities of the involved parties.

Limits on Powers

A Judge can only decide for the parties of the given dispute and is not able to actively issue regulations binding on others. However, the Judge's decisions can possess the authority of established jurisprudence.

Verdicts of the Supreme Court are binding upon all the lower courts and even upon other Powers of the State, i.e., the Legislative and the Executive. Constitutional control Any Judge appointed by the President (i.e., not private arbitrators) may declare any Law or any part of a Law to be unconstitutional, should they find grounds for such a judgment important for the resolution of a case. They may set aside this Law or the offending stipulation to give their Verdict. In addition, they must then redraft the Law in a way that repairs the error according to their judgment.

Should the Verdict gain legal force (i.e., there is no longer the possibility for regular appeal), the redrafted Law will be sent to Congress. Should Congress not deliver its reparation proposal, the judge-drafted version will become the new valid version of the Law.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stands as the pinnacle of the appellate system and serves as the paramount adjudicator of legal interpretation and application. It possesses the discretionary authority to assume jurisdiction over any case, irrespective of its origin, from private or state judicial bodies. This includes the prerogative to adjudicate political disputes that pertain to the legitimacy of constitutional procedures, such as elections and referendums, alongside other issues of significant political relevance, including questions of personal competence.

As such, the Supreme Court functions as a critical guardian of constitutional integrity, ensuring the adherence to legal principles in matters of substantial public interest and political governance. Its role encapsulates the ultimate exercise of judicial review, safeguarding the democratic foundations and legal consistency within the jurisdiction.

Constitutionality

The Supreme Court possesses the authority to intervene in any legislative procedure, including processes such as a Referendum or executive deliberations, and suspend its progression for a duration of 30 days. Within this period, the Court is empowered to assess whether the legislative act poised to emerge from the halted process is in alignment with the Constitution.

Should the Court find the act non-compliant with constitutional mandates, the legislative process is required to be recommenced, and the act in question must be revised to incorporate the Court's binding recommendations.

Trial

Prior to the commencement of court proceedings, the State Court Judge endeavours to amicably resolve the dispute through transparent, written communications and a Mediation process. It is only upon the unsuccessful conclusion of these preliminary stages that the case proceeds to Trial.

The Trial process is designed to adhere to traditional judicial principles, characterised by the presence of a Judge or a panel of Judges overseeing the proceedings. Parties involved are convened in a single location, which may either be a physical courtroom or a virtual setting such as a Zoom meeting, the latter of which represents a modern adaptation to traditional practices. Regardless of the format, the proceedings are conducted with strict adherence to decorum, requiring all participants to maintain politeness and professionalism throughout.

The Trial encompasses the presentation of witnesses and the submission of evidence, with the stipulation that only matters substantiated by such testimonials or material proofs are considered for the record. The guiding principle of the process is the pursuit of absolute material truth, empowering the Judge, through their expertise and professional judgment, to independently assess the credibility and reliability of the information presented.

Jurisprudence, along with Decrees and Edicts issued by the Ministry of Justice, are employed to elucidate and provide clarity on complex legal matters as necessary. Ultimately, the culmination of the Trial is the issuance of a Verdict, which definitively establishes the rights and obligations of the parties involved, marking the resolution of the legal dispute.

Appeal

The judicial architecture within Liberland is structured hierarchically, facilitating an appellate mechanism whereby parties aggrieved by initial verdicts can seek redress. Appeals are permissible under circumstances where it can be substantiated that procedural improprieties occurred, such as lapses in the impartial and diligent examination of facts, the emergence of new evidence previously unavailable, or the identification of procedural discrepancies. Additionally, an exceptional avenue for appeal exists via the Supreme Court, whereupon the adjudication rendered at this level is conclusive and acquires definitive legal validity.

Enforcement

In pursuit of maximising the efficiency and speed of modern technologies within the legal process, the enforcement of verdicts is envisaged to be executed through Smart Contracts. These contracts are programmed to automatically deduct Liberland Merit (LLM) from the account of the adjudged party once the verdict is legally recognised as enforceable. For litigations involving elements not amenable to blockchain transactions, namely off-chain matters, the enforcement protocol will emulate traditional methodologies. In such instances, the outcome will be encapsulated in a conventional contract, which can then be presented to either public or private enforcement entities for action, aligning with practices observed in other jurisdictions.

Checks and Balances

The Judiciary serves as a pivotal element in the system of checks and balances within Liberland, possessing the authority to annul regulations established by other branches of government. It stands as the branch most proximate to the populace, offering a direct avenue for individuals to lodge complaints not only against fellow citizens but also against the State itself. This proximity positions the Judiciary as a fundamental bulwark against the encroachments of tyranny, embodying the principle of safeguarding individual rights and liberties.

Inherently designed to prioritise the resolution of disputes on a case-by-case basis, the Judiciary's focus on the individual underscores its critical role in the governance and legal framework of Liberland. It is within this context that the Judge emerges as a figure of paramount importance among state officials, distinguished by their unique capacity to interpret and apply the law in a manner that directly impacts the lives of citizens. As such, the Judiciary, and by extension the Judge, merits precedence in discussions of state power, reflecting their indispensable role in upholding the principles of justice and equity in Liberland.