Post by nijhumnishita033 on Jan 11, 2024 9:14:45 GMT
Opinions of others, the App allows you to anonymously assess any point of interest from a specific judicial office. For example, there will be revealed evaluations f other colleagues about the habitual delay in the appointments of a certain Court or Tribunal, the habit of a judge or magistrate when limiting oral presentations in court, the average time for dictating sentence, the punctuality of his honor or whether he is inclined to hold telematic hearings, among other information. Although "JusticiApp" provides a predefined list of relevant aspects to rate from 1 to 5 . In fact, to illustrate how the App works, below we provide a screenshot of a real comment published by a user about the operation of the Social Court No.
7 of Madrid : (Foto: Economist & Jurist) As we perceive, there is a detail of which Court to be evaluated, the name of its Magistrate-Judge, the average score received and the comments of the legal operators. In this Phone Number Data case, as we observed and according to the opinion of this anonymous user, the Magistrate-Judge of the Social Court No. 7 of Madrid usually carries out a brief analysis of how she sees the lawsuit at the beginning of the hearing, lets people speak in the processing allegations and delivers its sentences without delay and well-founded. Thus, in line with what has already been stated, “the App has, on the one hand, a ratings section where you can rate, between one and five stars , certain aspects common to all jurisdictions.
And, on the other hand, in the comments section, you can leave your opinions as you prefer to tell them. These comments are always anonymous and the name of the person making them is never published (the functionality of the App is designed like this by default),” explains Molina Rodríguez. “Of course, disrespect or comments contrary to the conditions of use of the App will never be allowed,” concludes the creator of the tool.However, the Supreme Court explains that he has taken into account the discriminatory motivation based on ideology at the beginning of the discussion to establish the sentence at 18 and a half years in prison, above the minimum that would have been 15 years in this case.