A Look at the Process Outside the Law

Not long ago, during one of my cases, I was criticized for my assessment of the opposing party’s actions, which was summarized in the phrase: “unlawful procedural thuggery.”

Unfortunately, the court diverted its attention at that moment and temporarily postponed the decision to another day, thereby preventing me from presenting my legal position during the hearing.

But taking this opportunity, I would still like to make a few brief notes, since—given the model and patterns of behavior of many investigators and prosecutors—the problem of “thugs” who do not understand the concept of “law” does indeed exist within government agencies.

The gist of the argument is quite simple:

Unfortunately, Ukraine’s legal doctrine, legislation, and judicial practice still retain—presumably out of inertia from a surrogate Soviet mindset—a view of “law” as a purely theoretical category, significant only for fruitless rhetoric.

But what exactly is “law,” and is “law” synonymous with “statute”?

Of fundamental importance is the principle regarding the relationship between the concepts of “law” and “right,” as set forth by Julian in the *Digesta*: “We cannot follow as a legal rule that which is established contrary to the spirit of the law.”

Only a human being, as such, can be the bearer of law. And the category of “law” lies in part in the spiritual realm; it is the highest purpose of human deeds and actions.

It is humanity’s conception of goodness and justice. This is precisely what a person always desires for themselves from other members of society and from the state, its officials, and its civil servants.

Unfortunately, we must acknowledge that what is formally recognized and in effect is the supremacy of a certain formulaic, doctrinal surrogate. Hence, the laws are such that they generally serve only the principle of expediency and are far removed from the rule of law; in principle, their texts closely resemble operating manuals.

Based on these brief points, when during proceedings I hear the dry expression—there’s no other way to describe it—“we have the right,” accompanied by a reference to a section of the law without any argumentation or justification, it is precisely such actions that I often consider it possible to characterize as “extra-legal procedural hooliganism,” since while they may formally comply with procedural norms, they do not align with the categories of “law,” “justice,” “reasonableness,” “appropriateness,” etc.—they are not.