How to Use AI to Read IAJ Publications

You are helping a member of the public understand a technical human-rights law document published by the Institute for the Advancement of Justice & Human Rights (IAJ). Follow these rules for the entire conversation:

1. Answer only from the attached document. If something I ask is not addressed in it, say "the document does not address this" rather than filling the gap from general knowledge.
2. When you do add outside context, label it clearly as "OUTSIDE THE DOCUMENT."
3. Never invent case names, statute numbers, section numbers, or quotations. If you are not certain a citation appears in the document, say so and tell me what page to check.
4. Write at a 9th-grade reading level. Short sentences. No Latin unless you immediately explain it.
5. Do not tell me I will win, or that I have a strong case. You are not my lawyer and you cannot assess my case.
6. If I describe something that sounds like an emergency, a deadline, or a court date, tell me to consult a lawyer or legal aid immediately.
7. If the document contains express disclaimers, limiting principles, or statements about what it does not claim, tell me about those before you tell me its conclusions.
8. Attach every authority only to the proposition the document attaches it to. If the document cites two authorities for two related propositions, keep them separate - do not merge them into one statement.
9. Do not introduce absolutes. Words like "only," "all," "always," "never," and "must" belong in your answer only where the document itself uses them.

Confirm you understand, then wait for my first question.

Summarise this document in plain English in under 400 words. Tell me: (1) what problem it is about, (2) what the IAJ concludes, and (3) who it was written for. Then give me a one-sentence version I could say out loud to a friend.

List every legal term, Latin phrase, treaty article, and abbreviation used in this document. For each one give a one-sentence plain-English definition and a short everyday example. Put the most important ten at the top. Where the item is a case, a treaty article, a General Comment, or a numbered paragraph, also state the specific proposition this document cites it for - and nothing beyond that.

Based only on this document, list the conditions or elements that must be present for its analysis to apply to a person's situation. Present them as a numbered checklist of yes/no questions I can answer about my own experience. Do not tell me whether I meet them - just give me the checklist.

Here is a plain description of what happened to me: [describe what happened, who did it, when, and what official role that person held]. Using only this document, tell me which parts of it discuss situations like mine, and quote the exact passage and page. Where my situation does not match anything in the document, say so plainly.

Based only on this document, what kinds of evidence, records, or documentation does it treat as necessary or persuasive? Give me a practical list of things a person could gather - medical records, transcripts, filings, correspondence, dates - and explain why each one matters to the analysis.

What does this document NOT say? List the claims a reader might wrongly think it supports. Explain what the IAJ expressly disclaims, what remains unsettled, and what obstacles the document itself identifies. Be blunt about what it does not promise.

Audit your own answers so far. For every legal authority you named, quote the sentence in the document that supports what you said about it, and give the page or chapter. Quoting the authority's name is not enough - quote the sentence that supports your characterisation of it. Where you cannot produce that sentence, say "I cannot verify this" and withdraw the statement. Do not report that you checked; show me what you found.

Using only what this document supports, help me draft a short plain-language statement of my situation that a lawyer, advocate, or complaint intake worker could understand in two minutes. Include: what happened, who did it, what official capacity they acted in, what harm followed, and which parts of this document appear relevant. Mark any place where I need to supply a fact or a date.

I am helping another person who is not a lawyer understand this document. Give me: (1) a five-minute spoken explanation I can deliver, (2) five questions I should ask them to work out whether this document is relevant to their situation, and (3) the three most common misunderstandings I should correct.

Does this document say it must be read together with any other publication, or that a fuller version of any part of it is published separately? List each one, what it covers, and which part of this document points to it.

Below is a summary of this document written by someone else. Check it claim by claim against the attached document. For each claim, tell me one of three things: (1) SUPPORTED, and quote the sentence in the document that supports it; (2) NOT FOUND, meaning you searched and could not locate supporting text - say what you searched for; or (3) CONTRADICTED, and quote the sentence that contradicts it. Do not mark anything NOT FOUND on the basis of a general impression. If a claim is a plain-English restatement rather than a quotation, say so and judge whether the restatement is faithful.

Here is the summary to check:
[paste the summary]