Litigation is a process of discovering and searching for the truth, and because the pursuit of truth should be limited, it can only claim that the legal net is restored in the results that have already been achieved.
Constrained by costs, the combination of ex post relief and ex ante prevention may not be able to solve all the problems. Attention to the unresolved parts of the issue seems to be in focus.
Victory or defeat is the result of an ideal state, and the victory or defeat of litigation is an attitude, which is an objective reflection of the subjective heart's feelings about the objective result.
After the occurrence of a factual or legal relationship, in order to correct the result, the parties choose to litigate. The court is the handler of litigation cases, and when the legal, social, and political effects are used as a reference for measurement, the adjudicator should not only consider the facts and the law but also consider other factors, and in addition to controlling the law, he should also have rich experience in social life and a deep understanding of political factors.
The parties' experience of the adjudication result can be dispersed or traced back to their relevant expectations before the litigation. This expectation revolves around the parties' understanding of the application of the law to their own facts, and this expectation should include the expectation of the application of substantive law, such as the payment and amount of liquidated damages, and the expectation of the application of procedural law, such as the selection and use of various trial levels.
In the case of a complaint not being examined without an appeal, there may be a number of reasons for not filing an appeal, and it is not appropriate to uniformly dismiss the appeal. The fundamental purpose of each procedure is to correctly determine the facts and apply the law, and if there is a real need to correct the determination of facts or the application of law, is it more significant to accept the complaint and initiate supervision even if no appeal is filed? If the result of the first instance is correct, there is no evidence to prove whether it is more rational and gentle to initiate a supervision procedure to respond to the complainant who does not appeal.
There is a gap between objective facts and legal facts in the determination of facts, and there is always a greater or lesser difference between the facts experienced by the adjudicator or the facts ascertained by the trial. Although there should be limits to the pursuit of truth, in the eyes of the parties, the adjudicator has a natural and sufficient obligation to restore the objective facts, which may be the difference between "adjudicating a case" and "adjudicating a case". However, the transition from interrogation to adversarial assignment assigns the burden of proof to the party asserting the claim (except where the evidence is reversed), and only in a few cases can the parties turn to the court to obtain relevant evidence, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. The people's court shall investigate and collect evidence that the parties and their litigants are unable to collect on their own for objective reasons, or evidence that the people's court finds necessary for the trial of the case.
In the ascertainment of facts, due to the difference in time and space between the occurrence and presentation of facts, the adjudicator is not a witness to the facts, and judges the facts of the case based on evidence, resulting in the adjudicator not necessarily being able to restore all the objective facts. Therefore, in the determination of facts on the premise of the application of law, there are frictions, contradictions and even confrontations between the parties and the adjudicators. This leads to distrust between the parties and the adjudicator, and this distrust can also be attributed to the parties' expectations for the application of procedural law that do not conform to the value setting of procedural law itself.
Procedural law is a step to ensure the effective implementation of substantive law, and justice must not only be achieved, but also achieved in a way that is visible to people. First instance, second instance, retrial, and procuratorial supervision. However, petitions can occur anytime and anywhere, because the Constitution gives citizens the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. They have the right to lodge complaints, accusations, or reports with the relevant state organs for illegal acts or dereliction of duty committed by any state organ or state functionary, but they must not fabricate or distort facts to make false accusations and frame them. Letters and visits are an important way to protect citizens' rights and supervise violations of law and dereliction of duty. Petitions are also something that adjudicators must face.