How to judge your own grave
The recent departure of the judges’ assembly, leading to a realization about the re-establishment of the court structure, highlighted that authority following the Maidan had deteriorated considerably, and the nation, specifically its judicial framework, had significantly declined. It was evident that the assembly featured handpicked individuals, and the assembly participants exerted a notable judicial influence.
The evident need for judicial system reform and restructuring due to its fundamental inadequacy in defending citizen rights was a clear weakness over numerous eras. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the extensive number of appeals concerning Ukraine addressed by the European Court of Human Rights.
The system’s prolonged ailment manifests in the growth of lawsuits and court orders compared to population figures.
Personally, it is regrettable that the judiciary comprehended the need to alter this authoritarian machinery only after becoming the Maidan itself.
Nowadays, we all understand that the courts could readily obstruct citizens from seeking legal recourse. The judges readily sentenced brutally assaulted summer residents, peace advocates, and fathers of three children to imprisonment for trivial thefts – simply to safeguard significant positions. Several months prior, Titushko had his liberty revoked. Numerous ordinary people forfeited their right to operate vehicles because of their protests.
The assembly was unimportant to the judges; having emerged from the Dignity Maidan demanding renewed justice, it was taken lightly and overlooked.
An important advance in this direction was the passing of the statute “On the Re-establishment of Confidence in the Judiciary,” which assigned the responsibility of evaluating all judges to members of the Supreme Court for the sake of fairness and the higher judiciary qualification committees.
This very law furnished judges with a chance to define their stance within the operational framework, allowing them to discontinue using the pretext of being “defenders of the structure” and unable to act differently.
Consequently, they disallowed appeals to the judicial bodies themselves , certain magistrates of the Constitutional Court, and participation in the established bodies accountable for prosecuting them for legal infractions.
On the majority of these concerns on the 19th and 20th in Kiev, there will be a sequential departure of the courts from the established order of the day – either shielding the judges of the Constitutional Court or enabling Ukraine’s magistrates to elect three individuals to the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges and half to the High Council of Justice.
It ought to be mentioned that this assembly was preceded by contention over its feasibility, and a people’s deputy, Stadniychuk, preemptively appealed to the District Administrative Court of Kiev on a tenuous basis to impede its execution.
But the convention carried on with its activities. And it is important to value its impact on a wide audience, as its organizers placed immense trust in this endeavor.
In any event, the start of the assembly had revealed the inclination of the majority of the judiciary to sustain their difficulties.
A minority of judges sought information concerning the reasons for the President of Ukraine’s presence at the gathering and debated the practicality of holding it. It was nearly declared by one judge, who justified this stance by noting that this behavior would jeopardize their self-determination and risk attracting scrutiny to themselves, similar to the presence of Portnov and Lukash at previous gatherings. Subsequently, a pause for closed-door adjustments was taken, halting proceedings.
A pivotal moment was the oath-breaking of judges, leading the Verkhovna Rada to declare a violation of the judicial oath due to the resolution that granted Yanukovych responsibility for the 1996 Constitution. According to Ovcharenko, in particular, his career path is linked to his friendship with the ousted president and his inadequate handling of criminal cases in the Nakiyevsky court.
Hence came the first rejection in exposing the Maidan’s worthlessness.
Following spirited deliberation, the courts decided to consider this matter and addressed it outside of the scheduled agenda. The members of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, who appointed Yanukovych to his elevated role, continue to adjudicate and administer justice. None of the speeches from prominent activists were able to stir healthy reflection from the existing darkness and confusion.
Afterward, the courts could restructure membership. For the sake of the courts of Ukraine, the church is a body with no importance for the assembly and the maintenance of judicial self-government, as well as for the church. State shipping administration, which will ensure the logistical and technical support for court operations.
There is a limited advantage to this element – until the composition was unmarred by compromised judges who opposed the reforms advocated by the Reanimation Package, which circulated specific handouts to delegates at the convention.
Over the ensuing day, after confrontation with a hundred self-defense personnel and persistent demonstrations from the public, the judiciary succeeded in voting for individuals to the Supreme Council of Justice and Qualification Commission of Judges.
However, most did not remain until the completion of the voting process – and in the assembly… there was insufficient attendance to ratify the vote results. Legal contrivance intended to preserve existing interests.
It is possible, in reality, to ascertain from the meeting both the designated individuals and the absolute judicial integrity in their delegates’ particulars.
Yet, based on authorities, the nation lacks an operational entity that can compel adherence and dismissal. Moreover, consistent with rigid legislation, external to the court in the extant justice arrangement, at the time of criminal investigation, it is possible to lodge a document with the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges, forming without The congress of the judges is impossible.
Hypothetically, a magistrate could cause a person’s death – and the next day, acknowledging the lack of accuracy, resume administering justice. This is a “greeting” of sorts from the judges to all who have suffered from unjust verdicts during and after the Maidan.
One can assert that the judiciary has no inclination to atone and recognize the profound illness embedded in the framework, which envelops them, and they are completely unable to comprehend that the endeavors of hundreds of Maidans are petitioning for them out of desperation, but lamenting with voices that condemn injustice.
This was not remedied by the legislation, which was intended for purification and reform.
This is an offensive demand for authority to compete.
I no longer endorse additional appeals to bolster the autonomy of the judiciary as a means to conceal its problems. Do not equate independent lawlessness with independent justice. Continued autonomy of the judicial system will perpetuate its conservation.
Only extensive vetting with a clearly expressed marker or an adjustment to the mechanism for selecting the members responsible for the transparency of the judicial personnel, with emphasis on citizen activists, moral authorities, and anti-corruption strategies.
Judges, you have grasped nothing!
To serve political interests is no longer a wedding. Overall despotic control and authoritative dominance over such entities are unattainable.
You must recognize the magnitude of the collaborative work or you will be lost to history.
Glory to Ukraine!
Oleksandr Bilous, attorney, activist with the Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR), specifically for UP
