Appeals of historians of law to the study of the past have been justified and useful as awareness of the achievements and failures allows to protect the progress and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Community court as a social phenomenon requires deep historical research, philosophical reflection and consistent legal interpretation. The historical experience of the existence of the Community proceedings indicates that there was a real justice mechanism, which effectively solved the conflict. Community court - is one of the main types of community court. Community, as the most complete form of expression of the popular will, power and prestige as the authority was a gathering of local residents for investigation and trial. The people had guaranteedthe public calm and compliance with their rights and functions and had performed the judiciary of the people. Competence of Community Court extended to all residents of a territory, which were equal at the meeting. Community did not allow any restriction and considered almost all cases, without separation on criminal and civil cases. When it was at full strength (sometimes 100 people or more), from this part of the Community court by the community or by the plaintiff and defendant respectable person&s were elected to act as judges. As the crime was understood in terms of damage to the owner, but not to the state or society, the injured (victim) or his family searched and chased criminals, convened the assembly and even a direct effect on the tri&al on the case. Thus, the role of the injured (victim) in the process was active even in criminal cases. The idea of Community court required the presence in it of all citizens of the area. Custom regarding the presence of all neighbors required not &only assistance to be offended, all the neighbors were informed about what was going on it; also it clarified wheather anyone could provide information about the perpetrators of the crime who had not been disclosed. To take into consideration that th&e election of the judges in the community for a possibility to carry out their task and maintain an order in it, these judges could be equated to modern Collegium of Judges. However, the principle of equality was not respected, because in some cases &offended and accused put forward unequal number of judges. The number of judges has not been clearly defined, sometimes it depended on the number of villages that participated in the Community or the will of the concerned parties. Composition of the &Community was responsible to the social status of judges. Nevertheless, regardless of the principle of electing judges, they acted as arbitrators whose mission was to decide the case to the request of the parties and to reconcile them. Community judg&es were not always elected, Community could judge without them. Even with the election of judges the role of the community was not declining, and it had a practical part in the proceedings, in making judgments and their execution. Community court was& not a permanent institution to which one could come with his complaint. It was a court, which had some authority, acting on behalf of the citizens and called upon them only if necessary. If the aggrieved was not a local person, the community could n&ot draw attention to his call of gathering together. Thus, he asked for help from the government, and the government with its authority by supporting the request of the offended, called the Community by sending a letter to the outlying villages.
Co&nvening the community was the responsibility of a person on whom ground the crime was committed. Uniting (reconciling) was possible on different stages of each process and under certain conditions. For reconciliation a victim got a compensation which& was different. Reconciliation definitively canceled the case and invalidated the victim to apply to any other court with this case. At that time, legislative acts that were published, in their form were recollections of customary law, these records &
