(1) Islamic laws. (2) Those created by the Amir, which are based upon Islamic laws, the opinions of the people and the personal views of Habib Ullah as well as of his father, the late Amir. (3) Tribal laws. In criminal, revenue and political law the procedure was devised by Abdur Rahman; but for the rest, Islamic law is the general practice. The cases decided by the Amir himself are brought under two headings: Firstly, he sits as a Supreme Court of Appeal; in which capacity he hears and decides the appeals from all the various courts, whether civil, criminal or ecclesiastical. Secondly, there are some cases which he hears himself from the beginning and decides himself, just as do the inferior courts. Commonly it is understood that when the Amir sits as an original court to hear cases which are not appeals from any other court, such cases must be of great importance: such as political disputes, cases of high treason, offences against the Throne and matters of Government revenue. This is merely a theory, since any person who has even a trifling matter in dispute can have his case decided by the Amir himself if he fears that the subordinate Court is prejudiced; or if he chooses for any other reason to go before the Amir in preference to going before the subordinate Courts. It is in the pleasure of the Crown to refer such a plaintiff to the subordinate Courts, unless the plaintiff can prove that he has reason to believe that justice would not be equally meted out in such a court. The rule of Appeal, unlike that of England, is that the superior Court, instead of being satisfied with the investigation of the subordinate Court, takes the case as if it were a new one. New evidence, fresh inquiries and investigations are made from the very beginning, as though the case had never previously been tried. (1) _Appeals._--These are brought before the Amir in the following ways: Firstly, the various courts forward for his approval such judgments as they consider of great importance and do not like to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding. Secondly, the same Courts forward to the Amir for his opinion questions on which there is no definitely laid down law by which to abide. Thirdly, in cases where the spies of the Amir, who are supposed to be everywhere, report to him that some kind of fraud or partiality had been shown in a decision. Fourthly, where a plaintiff or defendant is dissatisfied with the judgment of any Court he can appeal to the Amir.