Konstantin Globa, Partner at BARRISTERS JSC: "A View of the Process Beyond the Law"

Recently, during one of the trials, I was criticized for my assessment of the opposing party’s actions, which was formalized in the phrase: “extra-legal procedural thuggery.”

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

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

The gist of the argument is quite simple:

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

But what is “law,” and is “law” the same as “statute”?

The fundamental principle regarding the relationship between the concepts of “law” and “right,” as stated by Julianus in the *Digesta*, is: “We cannot follow as a legal rule that which is established contrary to the meaning of right.”

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

It is a person’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 some formulaic, doctrinal surrogate. Hence such laws—which, for the most part, adhere only to the principle of expediency and are far removed from the law itself—whose texts, in principle, closely resemble operating manuals.

Based on these brief points, when during proceedings I hear the dry statement—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 I consider it possible to assess such actions as “extra-legal procedural hooliganism,” since while they may formally comply with procedural norms, they are incompatible with the concepts of “law,” “justice,” “reasonableness,” “expediency,” and so on. — No.