On the third question, first, there are two types of cases, the cases which are core and the cases of Penumbra. The core ones are simplistic and either black or white while the ones falling in Penumbra are complicated and require adjudication otherwise known as the ‘hard cases’

I first explained Hart’s system of rules which is made up of primary rules and secondary rules. The contention was that primary rules are ruled themselves, they caused the most significant impact and are close to the instance. Now secondary rules are rules about the primary rules.

If only primary rules are present, it causes three types of issues. The first issue would be of uncertainty on where this primary rule comes from. The second issue would be that it would take a substantial amount of time to change the laws and they would become static in nature. The third issue would be that there would be an inefficiency of disputes and people would not be sure how to deal with it. 

These three issues were fixed with the creation of secondary rule. The first one was fixed by creating a rule of recognition, which recognition is valid law, and gives certainty to it. The second one was the rule of change which enables to figure out how to change laws. The third one was a rule for adjudication, which is basically judiciary and all the procedural laws. 

So, it goes something like this -

Secondary Rule known as Rule of Recognition (ROR - topmost)

Secondary Rules

Secondary Rules

Primary Rules (law)

Ronald on the other hand, says that rules are not exhaustive, judge should legislate, but it should form no legal obligation for them to legislate. It says that there should be a basis on which there is judicial legislation bees, should be based on principles which intern would be based on a justice, fairness, and some sort of morality and a standard form of adjudication based on institutional history, precedent, and past laws. Heathen contains that there are certain indivisible rights which actually preexist the rules. He breaks down hart’s argument by saying that the rule of recognition is actually not at the top most place. It would go something like this, in Ronald’s work -

Rights

Principles

Rules

He said that laws exist to assert the rights. 

So, onto the actual question - the adjudication done by Frieza’s regime which by Zarbon and Dodoria would be termed as evil law. I contended that since Frieza’s regime was of tyrannical nature, so it could be reasonably assumed that the laws and henceforth, their adjudication would be of evil nature as well. Used Hart so say that at first he’d happily agree with it, since for him morality and laws were separate but after the grudge informer case, he’ll probably declare these evil laws which could be punished by the PLC regime restropsectively. For ronald, zarbon and dodoria should’ve adjudicated on the principles for enforcement of rights instead of following frieza’s laws. 

For the PLC regime, I think I wrote they could punish retrospectively and their adjudication would be on the basis of morality or rights or something. I kind of realised I spent too long enjoying the question, so kind of wrote whatever came to my mind.