What should citizens do if they are unable to freely seek justice through the judiciary for filing complaints and grievances (even if the case results in a dismissal order or termination of prosecution at the very beginning of the proceedings)?

Mr. President and Guardian of the Constitution
Mr. Head of the Judiciary
Mr. Attorney General
Mr. President of the Administrative Justice Court
Mr. Vice President for Legal Affairs

Greetings,

Imposing restrictions on citizens seeking justice and referring to the judiciary by labeling and degrading them as “professional complainants,” as well as limiting the registration of more than five complaints/petitions through judicial electronic service offices and forcing such individuals to refer to judicial presidents, deputies, or referral authorities of judicial districts for verification of these complaints and petitions — requiring them to spend considerable time and endure further hardship in order to obtain manual registration approval — is not only inconsistent with electronic judicial proceedings, but also stands in serious and concerning conflict with Article 34 of the Constitution.

If citizens cannot freely refer to the judiciary to seek justice and file grievances (even if such cases ultimately result in dismissal or termination of prosecution at the very beginning of the proceedings), what are they expected to do?

Are you aware of the dimensions and consequences of these judicial restrictions?

What is truly happening in the country?

Will the General Assembly of the Administrative Justice Court and its Deputy for Supervision and Protection of Public Rights annul this directive through the issuance of an interim order preventing its enforcement?

Will the Deputy for Supervision over the Implementation of the Constitution within the Vice Presidency for Legal Affairs fulfill their duty in safeguarding and enforcing Articles 34 and 40 of the Constitution?