Judicial interpretation in the context of "Civil liberties"

A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a judicial panel. In an adversarial system, the judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers or solicitors of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling in the case based on their interpretation of the law and their own personal judgment. A judge is expected to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an open court.

The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate. The presiding judge ensures that all court proceedings are lawful and orderly.

Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Arabic: أصول الفقه, romanized: ʾUṣūl al-Fiqh) are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law (sharia).

Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence elaborates how the scriptures (Quran and hadith) should be interpreted from the standpoint of linguistics and rhetoric. It also comprises methods for establishing authenticity of hadith and for determining when the legal force of a scriptural passage is abrogated by a passage revealed at a later date. In addition to the Quran and hadith, the classical theory of Sunni jurisprudence recognizes secondary sources of law: juristic consensus (ijmaʿ) and analogical reasoning (qiyas). It therefore studies the application and limits of analogy, as well as the value and limits of consensus, along with other methodological principles, some of which are accepted by only certain legal schools (madhahib). This interpretive apparatus is brought together under the rubric of ijtihad, which refers to a jurist's exertion in an attempt to arrive at a ruling on a particular question. The theory of Twelver Shia jurisprudence parallels that of Sunni schools with some differences, such as recognition of reason (ʿaql) as a source of law in place of qiyās and extension of the notions of hadith and sunnah to include traditions of the imams.

Legal proceeding is an activity that seeks to invoke the power of a tribunal in order to enforce a law. Although the term may be defined more broadly or more narrowly as circumstances require, it has been noted that "[t]he term legal proceedings includes proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority, and an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal". Legal proceedings are generally characterized by an orderly process in which participants or their representatives are able to present evidence in support of their claims, and to argue in favor of particular interpretations of the law, after which a judge, jury, or other trier of fact makes a determination of the factual and legal issues.

• Activities needed to have a court deem legal process to have been provided, such as through service of process.
• Conduct of a trial, whether a lawsuit or civil trial, or a criminal trial.
• Issuance and enforcement of court orders, including those imposing foreclosure or receivership.
• Hearings, particularly administrative hearings.
• Arbitration.

In the United States, Congressional hearings are not generally considered legal proceedings, as they are generally not directed towards the imposition of a penalty against a specific individual for a specific wrong. However, impeachment proceedings are generally conducted as legal proceedings, although experts dispute the question of whether they are primarily legal proceedings, or are merely political proceedings dressed in legal formalities and language. Richard Posner, for example, has asserted that it was "the intent of the framers of the Constitution that an impeachment proceeding be primarily a legal proceeding, akin to a criminal prosecution, rather than a political one".

An advisory opinion of a court or other government authority, such as an election commission, is a decision or opinion of the body but which is non-binding in law and does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but which merely legally advises on its opinion as to the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. The International Law Association is one such commission that provides non binding opinions and advisory documents regarding aspects of international law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may refer questions to the judiciary for an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

The court was established in 1959 and decided its first case in 1960 in Lawless v. Ireland. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals, or one or more of the other contracting states. Aside from judgments, the court can also issue advisory opinions. The convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 46 member states are contracting parties to the convention. The court's primary means of judicial interpretation is the living instrument doctrine, meaning that the Convention is interpreted in light of present-day conditions.

Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism. Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; and a tendency to deliver narrowly tailored verdicts, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions."

Judicial restraint may lead a court to avoid hearing a case in the first place. The court may justify its decision by questioning whether the plaintiff has standing; by refusing to grant certiorari; by determining that the central issue of the case is a political question better decided by the executive or legislative branches of government; or by determining that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.