You might also want to examine the definition of justice in a bit more detail in your introduction, too, and or explain your examples in more detail. I found some of them a bit . . . shallow, for lack of a better word. For instance:
listen elders' word,
What if your elder tells you to go out and steal people's wallets?
don't fight with other kids because it's bad
What if the kid you are fighting with is a bully who was picking on someone weaker who needed defending?
Natural justice is very universal and general norms in all humans' life because it includes people's sense of humor. For example, all people know it's wrong such as murder, lie, steal. But some other justice is little bit different in every other nations in which depend on their culture and religions. Natural justice is developing time to time which means people's moral is getting specific and open-minded and being fair for everybody. For example, in human history slavery, racial equality segregation was the one of the saddest unjust behavior.
This is confusing. If natural justice is universal (and just how is something "very" universal, anyway?), then how can it include people's sense of humor, which is notoriously variable? How can it develop? Was in fact slavery wrong if it seemed natural and just to the slaveholders at the time? If so, on what grounds? If not, why do you label it unjust?
Legal justice is for human's liberty and human's life capability.
But can't many laws be unjust, just as you presumably think the laws against slavery were? And aren't many laws based on principles other than justice? (Of course, you would have had to have defined "justice" on its own to be able to answer this.)