CUSTODIAL TORTURE AND ITS REMEDIES

“Torture is wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone, paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself”.-Adriana P. Bartow

Custodial torture ranging from assault of various types to death by the police for extortion of confessions and imputation of evidence are not uncommon. Such a method of investigation and detection of a crime, in the backdrop of expanding idea of ‘humane’ administration of criminal justice, not only disregards human rights of an individual and thereby undermines his dignity but also exposes him to unwarranted violence and torture by those who are expected to ‘protect’ him.[1]
In India where rule of law is inherent in each and every action and right to life and liberty is prized fundamental right adorning highest place amongst all important fundamental rights, instances of torture and using third degree methods upon suspects during illegal detention and police remand casts a slur on the very system of administration.[2] Human rights take a back seat in this depressing scenario. Torture in custody is at present treated as an inevitable part of investigation. Investigators retain the wrong notion that if enough pressure is applied then the accused will confess.[3] The former Supreme Court judge, V.R. Krishna Iyer, has said that custodial torture is worse than terrorism because the authority of the State is behind it.[4]

It is a paradox that torture continues to exist in India. This is because India is a liberal democracy with very clearly articulated constitutional and statutory provisions against torture that are constantly being developed and monitored by a strong and independent judiciary. This raises the question: how does torture continue to persist in India?[5]

The crudity of criminal investigation is often blamed on the crudity of resources: the lack of scientific equipment and professionally-trained persons to do the job properly. Although this is an element in the problem, it is not the central one. More important is the sheer impunity enjoyed by law enforcers. This impunity is allowed to flourish for want of laws criminalizing and punishing custodial torture, and also due to corruption and the wanton degeneration of courts and other institutions for the maintenance of law in India. Where a torture victim must wait for years in hope that a judge may one day take up his/her case, while meanwhile the perpetrator is being promoted, the very concept of justice is undermined.

Custodial torture is universally held as one of the cruelest forms of human rights abuse. The Constitution of India, the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations forbid it. But the police across the country defy these institutions. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance between the individual human rights and societal interests in combating crime by using a realistic approach.[6]
Custodial Torture and Death-The Current Status:

The World Medical Association, in its Tokyo Declaration, 1975, defined "torture"[7] as
"the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons, acting alone or on the orders of any authority to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason".

Custodial torture, often known as extra-judicial executions has been on a rise in India especially between 2002 and 2007. According to Asian Centre for Human Rights, the nationwide figures are four custodial deaths per day.[8] There have been 7468 reported custodial deaths in this five year period. However, the severity of the torture in India is far worse than statistics suggest. This is because victims rarely report cases against the police due to fear of reprisals. More than half the cases of custodial torture are not even reported.[9]

While award of compensation in 684 cases of custodial violence was given by the National Human Rights Commission alone from 1994 to 2007, conviction of only seven police personnel in 2004 and 2005 took place as against these overwhelming figures of custodial torture and subsequent deaths. This has led to a deep concern among the authorities.[10]

The explanations for torture can be broadly discussed under categories such as role of media, colonial origins, and institutional weaknesses. Firstly, there is a strong sense that the media exaggerates the incidents of torture and creates a negative image of the police. Second, scholars contend that the current police still suffer from the impact of their colonial origins as a repressive instrument of the police raj (rule). As a result, the “police mindset is steeped into colonial era when the police were supposed to treat every Indian as an enemy of the state.”[11] Third, there is constant pressure on the police from all quarters including politicians and bureaucrats to show instant results.[12] The lack of adequate facilities and personnel for investigation and the extremely high case load with an inefficient supervisory structure also hinders the ability of the police to produce the results required of them, prompting them to take short cuts.[13] In addition, the lack of training in human rights is considered a primary reason why third degree torture continues to exist in India.

For instance, the recent cases of custodial killings reported from the state of Gujarat show a consistent and alarming pattern of tolerance of the use of torture by the government and promotion of it as if it is an essential element of law enforcement and investigation of crime. In Gujarat, the interrogation centres -- often torture chambers -- of the state police have been functioning in full public view. The suspects are brought in, kept in illegal detention and tortured as part of questioning and later killed and declared as killed in encounter. This procedure is public knowledge, yet no one dares to challenge it. Officers, right from the top are involved in this Endeavour.

In a proceeding in the Supreme Court regarding this, the state government admitted in court that it was aware of the existence of the interrogation and torture centres. The government also admitted that in several cases the officers might have also killed the witnesses of arrest and detention in order to avoid questions at a later stage. The Gujarat experience, while being a shocking revelation of the state of policing in that state is also the proof that the public could be forced to silence, if the state so requires, by imparting fear.

Interrogation centers in India are run in the cover of prevention of terrorist activities. Interrogation centers are not limited to the state of Gujarat. In several other states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan the state governments run similar centres. In some states these centres are run in the name of anti-naxalite action.

In the state of Chhattisgarh for example, the naxalite and anti-naxalite activity has killed hundreds of innocent people. Use of brute force by the state and non-state actors irreparably destroys the social fabric. Besides promoting private armed groups, the state has also pressed into use questionable legislations like the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005. This statute is so loosely worded that anyone could be charged for a crime in this law. Many accepted legal norms in criminal law like non-retroactivity is negated in this statute.

Violence is used widely with impunity in the North-Eastern states. The state of Manipur in particular, is completely militarised. The paramilitary and the army detachments stationed in that state is notorious for the use of torture and violence as the only tool for investigation. Cases reported from Manipur, are mostly involving the armed forces, the Assam Rifles in particular.

Administrative neglect promoting the use of torture is misused by the police and other law enforcement agencies as an excuse for demanding bribe and for not doing their job according to the law. Continuing neglect by the government has also considerably reduced the morale of the law enforcement agencies. Rather than being considered as an essential state service police and other law enforcement agencies are viewed as state sponsored terror agencies mostly filled with criminals.

Remedies Against Custodial Torture:
There are two approaches with respect to the remedies provided for against custodial torture and subsequent death as well. These two approaches are – legal regime and judicial precedents. They can be explained as follows:

Legal Regime:
Constitutional Safeguards:
It has been held in a catena of judgments that just because a person is in police custody or detained or under arrest, does not deprive of him of his basic fundamental rights and its violation empowers the person to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.[14] Detention does not deprive one of his fundamental rights.[15] They don’t flee the persons as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration.[16] However, the extent of shrinkage can and should never reach the stage of torture in custody of such a nature that the persons are reduced to a mere animal existence.

Article 20 of the Constitution of India:
Article 20 primarily gives a person the rights against conviction of offences. These include the principle of non-retroactivity of penal laws (Nullum crimen sine lege[17]) i.e. ex-post facto laws thereby making it a violation of the persons fundamental rights if attempts are made to convict him and torture him as per some statute. Article 20 also protects against double jeopardy (Nemo debet pro eadem causa bis vexari[18]). This Article most importantly protects a person from self-incrimination. The police subject a person to brutal and continuous torture to make him confess to a crime even if he has not committed the same.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
This article has been understood in the Indian judiciary to protect the right to be free from torture. This view is held because the right to life is more than a simple right to live an animalistic existence.[19] The expression "life or personal liberty" in Article 21 includes a guarantee against torture and assault even by the State and its functionaries to a person who is taken in custody and no sovereign immunity can be pleaded against the liability of the State arising due to such criminal use of force over the captive person.[20]

Article 22 of the Constitution of India:
Article 22 provides four basic fundamental rights with respect to conviction. These include being informed of the grounds of arrest, to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, preventive detention laws and production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest of the person. Thus, these provisions are designed to ensure that a person is not subjected to any ill-treatment that is devoid of statutory backing or surpasses prescribed excesses.

Other Statutory Safeguards:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
A confession to police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence (Sec. 25 Evidence Act) and confession caused by threats from a person in authority in order to avoid any evil of a temporal nature would be irrelevant in criminal proceedings as, inter-alia, provided in Sec. 24. Thus, even though custodial torture is not expressly prohibited by law in India, the evidence collected by illegal means, including torture is not accepted in courts.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Sec. 46 and 49 of the Code protect those under custody from torture who are not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and also during escape. Sec. 50-56 is in consonance with Article 22. Sec. 54 of the Code is a provision that to a significant extent corresponds to any infliction of custodial torture and violence. According to it, when an allegation of ill-treatment is made by a person in custody, the Magistrate is then and there required to examine his body and shall place on record the result of his examination and reasons therefore.[21] It gives them the right to bring to the Court’s notice any torture or assault they may have been subjected to and have themselves examined by a medical practitioner on their own request.[22] A compensatory mechanism has also been used by courts.[23] When the Magistrate does not follow procedure with respect to entertaining complaint of custodial torture, it calls for interference by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code.[24]

Another significant provision with respect to custodial torture leading to deaths is Sec. 176 of the Code where a compulsory magisterial inquiry is to take place on death of an accused caused in police custody. Sections 167 and 309 of the Code have the object of bringing the accused persons before the court and so safeguard their rights and interests as the detention is under their authorization.[25]

Indian Police Act:
Sections 7 and 29 of the Act provide for dismissal, penalty or suspension of police officers who are negligent in the discharge of their duties or unfit to perform the same. This can be seen in the light of the police officers violating various constitutional and statutory safeguards along with guidelines given in D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal.[26]

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
After the controversial Mathura Rape case[27], an amendment was brought about in Sec. 376 of the IPC. Sec. 376(1)(b) penalises custodial rape committed by police officers. This was a welcome change made to the section in question as it finally condemns the acts of police officers who take advantage of their authority.

Sections 330, 331, 342 and 348 of the IPC have ostensibly been designed to deter a police officer, who is empowered to arrest a person and to interrogate him during investigation of an offense from resorting to third degree methods causing ‘torture’.[28]
Judicial Precedents:

The Supreme Court is heralded as a beacon of rights against torture. Indeed, since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has come up with two innovative ways of dealing with custodial torture and custodial death cases namely, the right to compensation for custodial death and torture and the formulation of custody jurisprudence.

The case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra [29] has provided for guidelines on rights of the arrested persons especially women. The court in this case also emphasized on the need for Magistrates to inform all arrested persons of their rights. Guidelines were also given by the Supreme Court in D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal with respect to rights of arrested persons. The most significant one being the arrestee should be subjected to medical examination every 48 hours during his detention by a doctor from the approved panel of doctors and copies of all prescribed documents should be sent to the concerned Magistrates. Also, the arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation.

Other Authorities:
It has been recommended in the 177th Law Commission Report by the 16th Law Commission that requisite amendments should be brought about in the Code of Criminal Procedure making it the duty of the police officers in whose custody there are arrested persons that they should ensure their safety and holding them responsible for failure of the same. Thirty years hence, this amendment has still not been incorporated. The presence of an advocate during interrogation of the arrested person is also a recommendation that has been made. The 185th Law Commission Report also makes recommendation regarding rights of arrested persons with respect to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which are with respect to s. 27. The Malimath Committee Report has also emphasized on the need for codification of the rights of the arrested persons.[30]

Despite the above, the abominable figures regarding custodial torture have still not improved. One very simple reason behind this could be that persons who are supposed to protect people are themselves the wrongdoers. The criminal justice system in India is supposed to use the reformist approach; however, the approach is such that animals get better treatment.

Conclusion:
The very ideas of a human being in custody save for protection and nurturing is an anathema to human existence. The word custody implies guardianship and protective care. Even when applied to indicate arrest or incarceration, it does not carry any sinister symptoms of violence during custody.

In a complaint of custodial torture, the court should not adopt a casual approach to it on the ground that it has been made by a habitual offender.[31] It is a perennial problem of statecraft.[32] It therefore, becomes imperative to evolve a system of state governance that allows the police to effectively maintain law and order and to prevent and detect the commission of a crime without jeopardizing legal rights; privileges and claims of laymen. Such a system obviously warrants appropriate control over the police in order to discourage them from exercising their power in a capricious manner. Similarly, an effective institutional grievance-redressal mechanism to vindicate ‘police excesses’ is also the need of the hour.[33]
As held by the Supreme Court, "custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and a degradation which destroys, to a very large extent human personality.

First, custodial torture must be made a crime. This could be brought in by way of a special law. Secondly, many cases of custodial torture could be prevented if law-enforcing agencies followed the existing laws relating to arrest and detention. The rules established by the Supreme Court--though not a complete remedy--should be applied without failure. Those who fail to comply must be prosecuted.

Thirdly, the public--and especially concerned professional groups, including rights groups and the media--must closely monitor police practices to see that government promises are upheld. The political opposition must also see to it that the Director General of Police submits a report to the legislative assembly, and an investigative report, on every case of custodial death and torture.

Fourthly, the central government should be urged to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The government has failed to ratify the treaty on spurious grounds that existing laws are good enough to prevent custodial torture which is evidently not the case. Were that the case, 60 years after independence and despite numerous concerns and guidelines issued by courts all over India, torture would not persist unabated as it does today.

 FOR INFORMATION ON GETTING ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE VISIT:

www.carlifornialemonlawsbua.co.cc

RIGHT OF WOMEN TO TERMINATE PREGNANCY

AN ISSUE which has become the subject of debate and judicial adjudication is as to a women’s/wife’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Judicial has played an important role in infringes the right of women’s/wife to terminate pregnancy through their numerous judgment.

Right to personal liberty is the most precious, sacrosanct, inalienable and fundamental of all the fundamental rights of citizen[1]. Article 21 of Indian Constitution enshrined one of the most precious fights in the form of life and personal liberty guaranteed under chapter three of Indian Constitution. Supreme Court in India, the guardian of fundamental rights, has given wide interpretation to term life and has often quoted the following observations of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois

"By the term life as used here something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an aim or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world. The deprivation not only of life but of whatever God has given to everyone with life or its growth and enjoyment is prohibited by the provision in question if its efficacy be not frittered allray by judicial decision".

Right to abortion is a species of right to privacy, which is again proclaimed a continuance of the right to life under Article 21. It can also said to be including the complete right of a woman over her reproductive organs. In the United States of America, the Supreme Court held the right to privacy and ended the ban on birth control back in 1965, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut[2]. Eight years later, the Supreme Court ruled the right to privacy included abortions in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade[3]. Freedom from interference in one's privacy and family life is protected by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, Article 11 of the American Convention, and Article 8(1) of the European Convention. The European Commission of Human Rights has propounded in its judgments, like that in cases of Bruggemann and Scheuten v. Federal Republic of Germany[4] and Paton v. United Kingdom[5] decisions one makes about one's body, particularly one's reproductive capacity, lie squarely in the domain of private decision-making.

Since right to life includes right to enjoy life with all the limbs and faculties, it implies therefore that right to procreation and right to have control over reproductive organs are included in the broader concept of right to life. In Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, the Supreme Court has certainly interpreted article 21 and recognized that a person has complete rights of control over his body organs and his ‘person’. Thus Right to procreation and to have control over one's reproductive organs gives birth to another right i.e. the right to abortion.

The right to your body lies with you and no one else. Any forced act upon your body without your consent is a violation of basic human rights. This is a serious problem in India, where the right to reproduction is handled by the spouses and the in-laws rather than the woman. If you are married, the decision of having a baby is solely yours, since you are the one who will undergo labour. No one can force or decide that for you. In a recent case husband filed a petition in Luck now court seeking injunction against the wife who wanted to terminate her pregnancy. Husband appeal after losing in trail level appeal to high court but the issue remained as unsolved because the women got terminated voluntarily or accidentally. It will be pertinent to point out that courts in India do not favorably view a wife’s decision of terminating her pregnancy without the consent of her husband even though the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, (MTPA) does not require such consent [6]. In India the foetus is considered the husband's property in India. So, irrespective of whether a woman wants to have a child or not, her husband's decision is taken into consideration. But the law states otherwise. A woman does not need her husband's or partner's permission to get an abortion. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a pregnancy can be terminated under these circumstances.

Ø If the pregnancy can cause physical or mental injury to the mother.

Ø In case the foetus has a handicap.

Ø In case the pregnancy is the result of a rape.

Ø In case of the failure of contraception.

In the case of a woman under the age of 18 or a mentally instable girl, a guardian's written consent is required. A woman above the age of 18 however, (married or unmarried), has the right to an MTP. The husband's consent is not required to terminate the pregnancy.

In India, the courts have been silent on any direct declaration of the right to abortion but impliedly court has infringes the right of women. Supreme court of India in numerous cases doesn’t not favor Right to procreation and to have control over one's reproductive organs gives birth to another right i.e. the right to abortion which they held in Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others . After to the judgment, Supreme Court has somehow limited the right of having control over one’s reproductive organs i.e. right to terminate pregnancy in several cases. In Satya v Siri Ram[7] Supreme Court held that termination of pregnancy twice at instance of wife in spite of insistence on part of husband and his parents to have a child in family amounts to cruelty. Similarly in S.k Verma v. Usha[8] it was held that aborting foetus in the very first pregnancy by a deliberate act without consent of husband could amount to cruelty. Court in S.k case ignores the MTP Act where concern is not material.

Court in above case has given due regarded to the sentiments and interests of both husband and wife. What about the right of widow to terminate pregnancy?? Recently Delhi court has summoned a widow of a Delhi policeman, along with her parents and brother, for having aborted her husband’s only heir to be[9]. According to the mother of the deceased policeman who is the complainant, the unborn foetus would have been the only heir of the deceased son, and the widow had got pregnancy terminated so that she could remarry. Summons has been issued as the court “is satisfied that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the respondents for the offence under section 312/201, Indian Penal code”. Here court gives more priority to IPC rather ignoring the special law “The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act”. And the widow has not committed offence as provision of MTP Act. Thus it submits that widow’s actual or reasonably foreseeable conditions are not difficult to visualize in our society. There has being several case where widow want to terminate pregnancy to remarry. Because of the sentiments of the family members she could not enjoy life i.e. Right to enjoy life according to article 21 of Indian constitution and forcefully bears the child for family members. Thus it infringes the rights of women. Thus the interest of the women should not be sacrificed at the altar of sentiments and emotions of those around her.

However not only judiciary, the section 312 of Indian Penal code 1860
"Whoever voluntarily causes a women to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the women be punished .....”. The Explanation provided that a women who causes herself to miscarry within the meaning of this section, infringes right to life of mother.

Many people believes that abortion is a moral issue, but it is also a constitutional issue It is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and it should not be altered or influenced by anyone else. Thus, MTPA provides rights to women for terminate pregnancy with certain limitation but doesn’t not give absolute freedom.

The legal regulations have abrogated the women's right to liberty to a great extent, particularly with respect to right to self determination, right to have control over her body and right to abortion. These regulations shave created serious inroads into a women's right to life and liberty and it has become nothing more than an illusion. It is, therefore, submitted that females should be given right to have control over their body and consequently right to have or not to have child and there should be amendment in section 312 of Indian penal code and judicially should bring a judicial tools to protect the right of women to terminate her pregnancy.

GETTING AN ATTORNEY FOR ISSUES LIKE THESE

CRIMINAL CASES -- The U.S. Constitution guarantees free legal help for people who cannot afford an attorney who are being charged with a crime. Generally the court will appoint a private lawyer who will be paid with county funds, or a public defender will be appointed to represent the person. You also have the option of representing yourself.


PERSONAL INJURY CASES -- Many personal injury lawyers will agree to represent you on a 15 to 50% contingency fee basis (only and if money is recovered.)

An attorney may be able to represent you pro bono (free of charge) if your situation can match these criteria:

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -- There are a number of non-profit legal services providers in Counties throughout America that are dedicated to helping low-income families in non-criminal or civil cases. People who are elderly, disabled, the victims of domestic violence, enlisted in the military or in other special circumstances may be eligible for help even if their income is a little higher than 125 percent of the federal poverty level.

SOCIAL JUSTICE or CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES -- If your case deals with these issues: abuse by a partner or spouse, sexual harassment by an employer, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, or environment pollution call the local bar association or private organizations such as The NAACP legal defense fund, The American Civil Liberties Union, The National Women’s Law Center, The lambda legal defense and education fund (gay and lesbian rights), The Natural Resources Defense Council.

Americans with Disability Act - Violations of the Act involving employment, accessibility, and reasonable accommodation.

Landlord Tenant Issues - Involving private landlords, such as illegal lockouts, eviction and termination of rental contract, failure to make repairs or provide essential legal services, failure to refund deposits.

Housing Discrimination - Based on gender, religion, race, national origin, color, familial status, or handicap.

Housing Counseling - First time homebuyer training, foreclosure assistance.

Consumer Issues - Wrongful repossession and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Law.

Immigration issues - Assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes with adjustments of their immigration status.

If pro bono or legal aid program can‘t help you, try some alternatives like contacting a low-fee lawyer through a lawyer referral service in your town. Or consider hiring a lawyer to work only on a part of your legal case and do the other parts yourself. This is called "unbundled" legal services (when lawyers provide help with just a portion of your legal problem.)

FAMILY LAW ISSUES -- Many courthouses have established family law centers, where trained staff help non-lawyers with cases involving domestic violence, divorce, child support, child custody and other family law issue or small cliams..............

CHECK OUT THESE FOR MORE ASSISTANCE.....
http://www.californialemonlawsbua.co.cc/

HOW TO FIND THE PERFECT ORANGE COUNTY ACCIDENTS LAWYER.

One of the ways by which you can get a good Orange County accident lawyer is to go in search of an attorney who is approved by a legal body. The California injury lawyers that you choose from should belong to a governing body that oversees the actions of the attorney. If you happen to be looking for one of the California injury lawyers then the one that you select should have a lot of experience behind him besides being trained professionally to assist claimants with a host of problems.


The next method to seek a capable Orange County accident lawyer is to go in search of a legal expert who has a good track record especially for the kind of claim that you are thinking of filing. In view of the fact that road accidents as well as work injury accidents come in the category of personal injury, you will have to choose from the California injury lawyers for this kind of claims. There are some California injury attorneys that are specialized in particular fields like work accidents, road accidents, slips or criminal assaults.

Yet another way to find the perfect Orange County accident lawyer is to make use of Internet technology which we can’t live without today; it is fast and easy to use and can bring you information in a jiffy. All you have to do is Google for whatever it is you are looking for and you will get access to articles with links to websites at the bottom in the resource box where you will get exactly what you are looking for. This way you can choose from some of the very best California injury lawyers.

Yet another way to get a good Orange County accident lawyer is to look for lawyers by scrutinizing reviews on legal websites and you can even find some through accident settlement companies. Such companies provide for people who are looking to make claims and in search of California injury lawyers. These companies which settle accident claims have a team of expert solicitors who are allocated to a claimant as soon as the latter registers with them and all the legal advice and tips will be provided to the claimant. Make sure that you can communicate with ease with the injury lawyer that you select and he has a no win no fee policy which means that you pay no fees if you lose and if you win you won’t pay fees either.

CAR ACCIDENTS LAWYERS FOR HIRE

Getting injured seriously due to a car accident or a motorcycle accident or any other type of accident as a result of negligence on the part of someone else needs you to get in touch with one of the best California injury attorneys. They will assist you in taking legal action against whoever is responsible for your accident. If you hire one of the California injury lawyers he will do everything for you. The Orange County auto accident lawyer, the Orange County injury lawyer or the Orange County motorcycle accident lawyer is familiar with all the laws that have to do with personal injury. Taking the case up for a lay person on his own is not at all easy as there are complex issues and laws that are not easy to understand if you do not have a legal background.


The California injury lawyers definitely know the law better than you do. They have all the requisite training, knowledge as well as experience to the ins and outs of the way things work. There might be times when your case might not give you the right to get a claim. But if you hire one of the California injury attorneys he will find ways by which you become eligible to receive a claim. Once you qualify for a claim, the Orange County injury lawyer will make sure you get the highest claim you possibly can.

Hiring one of the California injury attorneys has its benefits as they know the personal injury law as well as the insurance law. He will be able to draw a relationship between the insurance law and your particular case. Most insurance companies are not easy to deal with as they would rather process your claim so that they stand to gain. Very often they might misinterpret the law so that your claim gets reduced. But if you hire one of the California injury lawyers they will not get the better of you. Very often, the insurance companies will provide you with conditions that will make you agree to their compensation. But if you have your own California injury lawyer, you will not be cheated.

The California injury lawyers will provide their clients with a rough idea as to how much compensation they can receive from the different kinds of injuries. They will even be able to tell you exactly how much compensation you will receive for your case while it would be very difficult for you to do it on your own especially if you do not come from a legal background. If you are ignorant, then you have no idea about what is due to you so chances are you might not even get paid by the party. Without one of the California injury attorneys to help you, you will never know whether you got cheated and received less than you ought to have.

There are plenty of California injury attorneys available but then although some of them could be really good, there are others that are just not worth hiring. If you have met with an accident then you will need to hire only the best Orange County accident lawyer if you are to get the maximum compensation. Read on to learn more about how to find the perfect Orange County motorcycle accident lawyer, the Orange County auto accident lawyer or the Los Angeles bicycle accident lawyer whichever might be applicable to you.