Civil rights are an important symbol of the constitution. Lenin once pointed out: "The Constitution is a piece of paper with people written on it." The purpose of the constitution is to protect citizens' rights, and violating citizens' rights is to violate the constitution. The constitution cannot exhaust civil rights (basic rights) by giving examples or enumerating. It is against the essence of constitutionalism to say that only the legal rights that violate or concretize constitutional rights can be remedied. Constitutionalism recognizes that rights precede the constitution. All violations of personal rights are violations of personal rights, regardless of the legal provisions. Starting from the human rights purpose of constitutionalism, everyone should get relief.
Principle of timely relief
Right relief is the embodiment of corrective justice. An axiom of justice is that justice must be realized, and late justice is not justice at all. Justice is reflected in timely assistance. The principle of timeliness requires that the relief procedure should provide timely judgment in public relief such as judicial relief. Here, "timeliness is a compromise between two extremes: sloppiness and procrastination." Because "hasty judgment is easy to make mistakes." And "delaying the settlement of disputes will prompt people to' solve problems'." And it will "hinder people from arranging their own lives." The timeliness of right relief is an inevitable requirement for the continuity and stability of legal order. Failure to complete the remedy after the rights are infringed will inevitably lead to the break of the order chain and may lead to greater procedural damage at any time.
Principle of complete relief
If timely relief emphasizes the timeliness of right relief, then adequate relief is the quality requirement of right relief. What is enough? This is a standard that is difficult for both parties to contradictions and disputes and even the court to agree with. For those whose rights have been violated, it is good to hope for more compensation; For the infringer, a verbal "sorry" is also redundant, and the court fully understands that because the judge's growth experience is different, the judgment of the parties is different, and the legal provisions are only flexible in scope. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embodies the coordination and compromise between different standards such as obligee, infringer, judge, legal norm and public, as well as some unity in form. The bottom line of full relief should be to satisfy the compensation for the loss of the infringed or to restore the original state. Although it is difficult to measure the sufficiency of mental infringement with money, giving appropriate monetary compensation can still play a role in smoothing the injured mind.
Principle of fairness and economic coordination
Protecting the infringed rights through the relief system requires the obligee to spend a certain cost to complete the relief process from the state set by the system to the specific protection of rights in reality. Although the basic idea of relief is to safeguard human dignity and social justice, which is priceless, the process of achieving this goal in any specific dispute can be measured by money, and the indicators for measuring the adequacy and effectiveness of relief often appear in the form of money. Therefore, the requester of right relief must consider the cost of achieving the relief goal. Of course, if we look at the right relief from the perspective of the whole society, we must combine the cost of individual right relief with the benefits brought by the whole society after relief. This level of analysis is just as Bosbo said: "For the infringement problem, legal economics does not attach importance to the compensation goal, but assumes that the purpose of tort law is to promote the effective allocation of resources to prevent infringement. Social costs include not only direct infringement losses, but also legal and administrative costs that cannot be compensated by society. "
Principle of fairness and economic coordination
The historical development track of right relief reveals the shortcomings of early self-help (private) relief, such as high cost, incomplete consistency with justice, chaotic social order, lack of security and stable expectation. Thus, the social and psychological needs of public relief have emerged. Finally, the right relief carried out by the state-led judicial institutions replaced the private relief and gradually became the main channel of civil rights relief.
Principle of judicial ultimate relief
The essence of justice is relief. As kelsen said, "The court mainly confirms that an illegal act (civil or criminal) has been committed and decides the sanctions. Therefore, determining the obligations and rights of all parties is only secondary. Legal relief is internationally recognized as the most authoritative relief and the legal last resort of the seven countries, so it has gained international universality. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) clearly stipulates: "Anyone whose basic rights are violated by the Constitution or laws has the right to an effective remedy by a qualified national court. "The constitutional embodiment of the principle of judicial ultimate relief is the judicialization of the Constitution. Whether the final judicial relief can be obtained through judicial review is the most critical criterion to measure the adequacy, effectiveness and reality of civil rights protection in a country. The principle of judicial final relief reveals the general rules and requirements of the construction of constitutional rights relief system.