Auroran Court of Justice: Difference between revisions

==Procedures and protocols==

A party which wishes to bring a dispute or report a treaty or sapient rights violation is called the complainant. The complainant presents a request to the Prosecutor-General in the event that the case is falls within Auroran criminal law. In the case that the complainant wishes to bring a civil dispute for Arbitration, then they must present the matter to the Court Sheriff to determine its legal validity. Upon determining that the matter, is valid, the case will be brought before the pretrial bench.

The pretrial bench will consists of one or more justices and it will determine whether there is grounds for litigation, whether appropriate and alternative remedies were sought by the complainant, whether documentation will be sufficient or whether an oral trial is needed. In criminal proceedings, the pretrial process will consist of additional appearances and steps such as finding out whether there is probable cause to suggest that a criminal act took place and what kinds of steps should be taken (such as whether and what type of warrants and subpoenas will be required). If the case is admitted the complainant will be called the plaintiff if the case is a criminal case. The accused will be asked to appear before the court. The accused in a criminal case is called the defendant and the accused in a civil case is called a respondent.

The trial bench will actually examine the case. In a civil application, the trial bench will only receive written documentation and maybe some appearances from lawyers to provide explanation on any matter the justices may be unclear on. This is usually the case in appeals. And the justices will issue a summons requiring that the respondent in a civil case present counter evidence. If a case of such a nature that it is too emotional, complex etc., an oral trial will be held in which the parties may question witnesses. In a criminal case, an arrest warrant will be issued in which the defendant must either appear voluntarily or be brought to custody by force. Member states and the [[Auroran Security Agency]] are legally obliged to enforce the arrest warrant if the court determines that the defendant is non-cooperative.

If the defendent is brought into custody, the court may set bail and impose travel restrictions etc., or simply hold the defendent in detention until the end of the trial if the defendant is a flight risk or is in danger of being harmed or of harming others should they be released. The oral trial will involve witness testimonies and oral arguments. In different types of cases, a certain amount of judges are required to be there, but it cannot be less than half of available judges. The judges must vote by a simple majority or a two thirds majority, whichever is higher. In some cases, a unanimous agreement is required. Dissenting or minority opinions must be noted and all trials are public.

Should the parties to the case be unsatisfied with the outcome, they may request an appeal. In the event that an adverse ruling is made against a member state, that member state may request an interdict on any action that the UNAC might take in response, such as suspension or termination of membership, economic sanctions, blockade or invasion etc., while it seeks an appeal on its case. There are no preliminary processes to appealing a case. The Court Sheriff will place the case on the roster according to time constraints. On appeal, the parties will solely rely on whether there were procedural or substantive errors in the judgment that was made. The appeals bench may consist of the same justices as before, but not less. They cannot retry the case or review old evidence except in exceptional circumstances where new evidence has emerged which was material to the case, but these situations are untested.

Some cases do not follow this procedure. Legal advisory cases require an application to the Court Sheriff. The Court Sheriff will invite anyone to come forward to contribute to the case. In many ways the matter follows many of the protocols of a normal trial. The major difference is that no arguments with rebuttal are presented and the justices are free to make their own investigations independent of anything presented by the parties or contributors. Legal advisory cases cannot be appealed. An entirely new case must be brought up to challenge a previous ruling in which case any ruling that goes against previous advise supplants it.

There are interdictions as well. An interdiction is a situation in which a complainant goes to the court to demand that a certain action be stopped before occurring. This can include the seizure of property by a third party etc. The court will issue an interdict to temporarily suspend the enactment of the action until the dispute is resolved within or out of trial. Interdicts have a finite period and may require renewal (which the court is not obligated to grant). Moreover, where a statutory body of the UNAC has legitimate cause to undertake an action, an interdiction is highly unlikely to be granted and where it is granted, will most likely be restricted to reducing the intensity or scope of the action (e.g., if the Auroran Security Agency conducts a raid).