Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Basics Regarding Ensuring and Restoration of Legal Status of Social Subject from Azerbaijan to Kyrgyz Republic

The article investigates comparative legal analysis of constitutional basics regarding perception, recognition, ensuring and observance of individuals’ legal status in some Post-Soviet Union countries like Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, and others. Importance of constitutional chamber in the Supreme Court of Kyrgyz Republic has been underlined. It is essential to mention that this idea was supported by researchers of professor Alankir’s School. Moreover, Japanese and Estonian legislators vested the Supreme Court with the power of constitutional oversight. At the same time, the prosecution office of Kyrgyz Republic together with Ombudsman ensure observance of citizens’ legal status and fulfill the function of general oversight. Attention has been drawn that prosecution office of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz Republic fulfills the function of general oversight. In Armenia it is not the President who is the guarantor of the Main Law and citizens’ legal status but the Constitutional Court and Cassation courts and the Defender of Human Rights who fulfills traditional functions of prosecutor’s general oversight when prosecution office is an attribute of justice. It has been stressed that in Post-Soviet Union countries the Main Law of Belarus and Kazakhstan has the most developed constitutional ensuring and observance of individuals’ legal status because the President of the state is recognized a guarantor for observance of citizens’ legal status. The Constitution of Georgia has more declarative legal regulation and this protection the citizen can receive by submitting a request to the Constitutional Court. The functions of prosecution office are not mentioned, and this body is an attribute of the Ministry of Justice