For justice to be in a place, in the negative sence needs a law and hence a lawgiver. Next a person who can be held accountable and has broken the law(s). The last thing needed is a judge.
This judge needs to have knowledge of the law, knowledge of the persons actions and means to execute the prescribed penalty.

Both the lawgiver and the judge need one more thing: authority over the person(s) who ought to obey the law.

I suppose the authority part here is philosophically the most difficult. From where does authority come? Majority? Wise men? Tradition? God?
Once we have a perfect law(giver) and a perfect judge and all people who ought to obey the law have perfect knowledge about both the authority of the law(giver) and the judge, than and only than there will be perfect justice and, maybe even more importaint, all will have peace with that justice which is basically the goal of justice.

The same can be done in a positive sence with again a law(giver) and a rewarder. This, however is a bit counter-intuitive, since the judge, in the negative sence, would give more punishment to a lawbreaker it is something evil. If however the rewarder would give more reward to a lawkeeper, is that something good or something bad?