Sukalo Valentin Olegovich biography. Chained dogs of the regime. Valentin Sukalo, Chairman of the Supreme Court. What are these complaints about?

Today's conversation with the Chairman of the Supreme Court Valentyn SUKALO can be called significant without exaggeration - it concerns the most important milestone in the history of the Belarusian judicial system. We are talking about the actual completion of the judicial and legal reform and the tasks of improving national justice.

- Valentin Olegovich, how long did the judicial and legal reform in Belarus last?

Quarter of century. 25 years, during which a whole generation has grown up. In fact, the history of our judicial system is the history of Belarusian statehood. Because in any country the formation of the judiciary is an important part of the development of the state.

- Let's look at the main stages of the reform. How did she go?

Judicial-legal reform could not take place on its own, without certain rules, deadlines, periods. And most importantly - without the appropriate concepts. The first of them was adopted in April 1992. The Belarusian state was still very young, and the first concept of judicial reform turned out to be a match for this young age: it looked romantic, overly revolutionary, and therefore somewhat utopian. It contained a lot of borrowings, that is, direct copying from foreign judicial systems. And although the then Supreme Council approved it in this form, too much in it was unrealistic, did not correspond to our capabilities of that time. Therefore, for five years, until 1997, the reform stalled - practically none of the provisions of that concept was implemented. It was proposed to create judicial districts that do not coincide with the administrative-territorial division of Belarus, to introduce the concept of magistrates' courts and jurors ... Obviously, this was an unviable concept, against which practicing lawyers objected.

- What was the impetus for the next stage?

Decision of the President to convene the 1st Congress of Judges in December 1997. At this congress, taking into account the proposals of the delegates, it was decided to develop a new concept of judicial and legal reform. It had to take into account the possibilities of the state and the point of view of judges-practitioners. At the 2nd Congress of Judges, in 2002, a new concept developed by that time was adopted. Its practical implementation has begun. In 2011, the third stage started: the Address of the President on the prospects for the development of common courts gave a countdown to the new steps of the reform. It was approved by a relevant decree, was of a normative nature and contained 56 provisions that had to be implemented in 5 years. By the end of last year they were all implemented. The most important final stages of the reform were the unification of general and economic courts, the acquisition by the Supreme Court of new functions of judicial support, the creation of a separate enforcement service in the system of executive authorities, the liquidation of military courts, etc. In fact, since 2014 we have been working in the new system. And a peculiar feature under the completion of the judicial and legal reform, its crowning achievement was the adoption at the end of 2016 of a new Code on the judiciary and the status of judges. It entered into force quite recently, on January 24: it is a set of rules for the life of the unified judiciary in its new capacity.

- That is, the work proceeded consistently and systematically, without serious shocks?

Yes, from the outside it may seem that the reform was very simple and imperceptible. But this happened because during this gigantic perestroika we did not stop justice for a single day. In fact, these were the most complex transformations: the entire judicial mechanism was rebuilt, while at the same time continuing to work. After all, one must understand that in the context of judicial reform one should talk not only about judicial reorganization, but also about the transformation of the legal system of the country as a whole. After all, the innovations affected the centralization of investigative bodies and expert institutions, affected the functions of the Ministry of Justice, the competence of the prosecutor's office was revised ...

What was all this for?

Any reform is not started for its own sake. For example, the goals of the very famous radical judicial reform of 1864 in the Russian Empire were formulated in the tsar's manifesto in this way: it is necessary to create a fast, right, merciful and equal court for all. These goals are very consonant with the tasks that were set before the Belarusian judicial system. Ultimately, all the transformations took place to improve the quality, efficiency and accessibility of justice.

- Were you able to achieve these goals?

In many ways, yes. Today we can state that the optimal model of the Belarusian justice system has been found. It is quite rational, economical, self-sufficient and modern. It is completely, which is very important, separated from the executive authorities. It absolutely corresponds to the administrative-territorial division of our country, is understandable and accessible to people. The very term "judicial power" has really become real. It was first proclaimed 25 years ago in the Declaration of State Sovereignty. Before that, in the Soviet system of justice, such a term was not mentioned, it did not exist at all. And today the judiciary has not only been proclaimed, it has taken place - it has become really tangible and independent.

- What can be said about the quality of justice?

I suggest using a third-party appraisal. There are global world rankings that evaluate this quality. For example, the international ranking "Rule of Law Index-2016", compiled according to independent experts. In this rating, the civil justice of our country is on the 30th place, the criminal - on the 49th. These are very high positions both in the world and among all CIS countries. For comparison, I will say that the Russian justice system is ranked 63rd and 98th, respectively. That is, we have achieved a good quality of justice, as other figures can indicate: last year, out of more than 44,000 sentences, they were canceled only in relation to 563 people. For five years we have not had a single case of unjustified condemnation of citizens.

- What has increased the efficiency of justice?

It was possible to achieve procedural savings by simplifying non-binding, formal court procedures. We have taken the path of introducing modern trends in justice and information technology. In March 2016, they introduced such a form of checking the legality of court decisions as an appeal in criminal cases. It allowed for a 40 per cent reduction in the number of retrials in the courts of first instance. That is, the courts of second instance themselves make a new decision, correcting the sentences of the district courts. Thanks to this, we began to complete the justice process at an earlier stage. This modern form, already implemented in criminal justice, will be introduced next year in civil justice. In economics, it has been operating for quite a long time.

* * *

- Can we say that the slowness of justice has finally been overcome?

Unfortunately, not to the end. Numerous postponements of the consideration of cases have not yet been eliminated.

- What is the reason for this?

In my opinion, the reason, paradoxically, is the desire for higher quality. The fact is that about 40 percent of judges have work experience of up to 3 years. They lack experience. Therefore, they try to approach as responsibly as possible so that their decisions are impeccable. Efficiency becomes a victim of this approach: in search of an absolutely correct solution, it often takes more time than we would like.

- Maybe it's not so bad?

Of course, our mentality with its search for balanced, well-thought-out decisions affects here: "Measure seven times, cut one." But all the same, it is necessary to find a reasonable balance, a golden mean between a quick and a right court.

- Do people often complain about the work of the courts?

The number of complaints as a whole and the number of justified complaints about the work of the judicial system have also decreased. But here we must understand that there are procedural complaints against court decisions, which are an integral part of justice, part of the judicial process. More than 9,000 such complaints were received last year, and about 15 percent of them were corrected by higher courts. This is a normal process. And there are more disturbing complaints about shortcomings in the organization of justice. Although their number also decreased, it still amounted to almost 2.5 thousand. Of these, 139 turned out to be justified, which is about 4 percent.

- What are these complaints about?

This, I believe, is a manifestation of growth problems. The Supreme Court began to be responsible for everything that is done in the judicial system, taking over these functions from the executive authorities represented by the Ministry of Justice. Now we are also responsible for the work of the apparatus of the courts, administration, and staffing. Accordingly, complaints on these issues also began to be addressed to us. As a solution to the problem, demand was seriously tightened. Of course, this approach will bear fruit, but perhaps not immediately. For example, last year 46 judges and 196 employees of the apparatus were punished for disciplinary offenses, 2 judges were fired on discrediting grounds - in connection with misconduct discrediting the title of a judge. Two more judges were convicted - sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for corruption crimes. As you can see, the Supreme Court evaluates the work of its people quite strictly and does not forgive a single serious mistake.

- What did the independence of justice give in terms of logistical support?

For example, the possibility of concentrating funds in creating conditions for a new judicial system. We have become more self-sufficient financially. Five new court buildings have been erected over 3 years, and only in the last year 10 buildings have been overhauled with elements of reconstruction and modernization. As you can see, we are going the way not so much of building new ones as of deep modernization of old buildings, making them more modern and functional. I think this approach is correct from the point of view of the economical use of funds. In recent years, the internal situation in our courts has also changed completely. A serious computer base has appeared, the technical equipment has been updated on the whole, the courtrooms have become different, right down to the decoration and furniture.

- What can be said about the accessibility of justice?

One of the main advantages of combining general and economic courts is that the judicial system has become more understandable for people. Previously, there were often disputes about the jurisdiction of a particular case. For example, when disputes arose between entrepreneurs, between individuals and legal entities. Where to apply? Either to the economic court, or to the general one... Now these disputes have disappeared. We are in the same system and do not allow disagreements within it. Not only the organization of justice, but also judicial practice has become unified. For the most complex categories of cases, it is formed by the Supreme Court, which is a single body of judicial supervision. Uniform application of the law in various areas of justice has also been ensured.

- Did you manage to cope with a large judicial workload?

Let's just say, it was possible to significantly optimize it. Despite a significant increase in the number of cases. For this, not only legislative possibilities were used, but also intra-judicial reserves. In the course of the reform, the judiciary has the opportunity to maneuver forces and means. For example, in 2015, as soon as the workload in the economic courts increased dramatically, we immediately transferred some of the staff and judges from general courts there. Thus, it was possible to stabilize the load. And in 2016, the number of cases submitted to economic courts was reduced by 15 percent due to the fact that we initiated the transfer of indisputable categories of cases for resolution to notary offices. Nearly 50,000 such cases were transferred to notaries.

Although the load is still high. Today, there are 130 cases per judge of the economic court per month. In general courts - 70. This is also related to the number of judges. There are world standards, for example, European ones, where one judge should fall on 5,000 people. We have 8 thousand. But in general, last year the judicial system coped with the volume of cases received, and there were about 700,000 of them. In fact, this means that about 4,000 court decisions are considered and adopted daily in 150 courts of the country. I think this is a weighty confirmation of our movement forward.

* * *

- So, judicial-legal reform is completed. Does this mean that Belarusian justice does not need further development?

Of course not. Last year, a five-year plan for the development of the judicial system was adopted. It contains a number of fundamental positions that will be not so much a continuation of the reform as an improvement on the results already achieved.

- Let's name at least the main ones.

Then let's start with the introduction on January 1, 2018 of the appellate system for the review of judgments in civil justice, which I have already mentioned. Here the complexity is already in the number of civil disputes - there are about 220 thousand of them a year. Therefore, purely technically, it will be more difficult for a regional court than in criminal proceedings to decide on a case without sending it for retrial. After all, the appeal is introduced without increasing the number of higher courts. In addition, some countries create special courts of appeal, but we do not do this, partly transferring the judicial burden from courts of first instance to courts of second instance.

The next important point is the introduction of a unified judicial procedure. Still, after the unification of the general and economic courts, there remained differing procedures for legal proceedings, determined by the economic procedural and civil procedural codes. It is impossible to level this difference without changing the legislation. After all, the economic procedure code was largely arbitration. Therefore, we are now working on the creation of a unified code of civil procedure, which would include the features of the consideration of economic cases. It is important that there are common principles, common approaches to resolving disputes both between business entities and between individuals. The complexity of the task is evidenced by the fact that the Russian Federation has also set itself such a goal, but has not been able to achieve it for five years. We hope that it will be possible to do this much faster.

Another task is the introduction of mediation and all forms of pre-trial reconciliation. Something is already happening: in economic justice, up to 60 percent of disputes are terminated before trial, in general - about 25 percent. In addition, approximately 1,500 petty criminal cases were closed without going to trial, for reconciliation of the parties, compensation for damages, and on some other grounds. But this is not enough. After all, a less conflicting way of resolving disputes, without bringing them to trial in court, is also a solution to the issue of judicial workload. The problem is the lack of mediators, low awareness of people about such forms of pre-trial settlement and, accordingly, some distrust in them.

The next step towards the justice of the future is the simplification of archaic judicial procedures. We do not need obsolete attributes of Roman law in cases where people admit their guilt, repent, and agree with the punishment. Why in these cases formally conduct a process, question witnesses, etc., hear the parties? Last year, for the first time, we introduced a simplified form of sentencing, if the defendants agree to it. About 900 cases were considered under this procedure. This will not work with complex cases, but there are simple, obvious cases that do not require compliance with all formalities. This is the modern international way of the so-called procedural economy.

- Is the introduction of information technologies also among these tasks?

Yes, and we are already using them not only in the pre-trial procedure for notification of trials, but we are also trying to introduce them into the process itself. This refers to the conduct of the meeting without a secretary, without a protocol - with fixation by means of audio recording. We are already conducting some processes using video communication in order to do without calling people directly to the meeting room. Regional courts are equipped with special studios that allow some cases to be considered via videoconferencing.

I want to emphasize that the justice of the future is impossible without the trust of the population. This is a fundamentally important point: any process begins with the question of whether the parties trust the court. How to ensure that people invariably choose national justice, and not some Stockholm arbitration or London high court, to resolve their disputes, especially economic ones? I think there is only one way - through the openness of justice, its accessibility, the high culture of judges, respect for the participants in the process.

Last year, as far as I know, the Supreme Court conducted a sociological study on this topic. What did it show?

We wanted to find out what is really going on with our trust in justice. The study was quite serious, although there were various rumors around it. Some media deliberately took out of the context of the entire study some part of it, for example, an Internet survey over a short period, and presented it as the final result. In fact, the study of public opinion went on for several months. And not only on the Internet, but also on the basis of 9 courts, which conducted anonymous surveys of hundreds of people. The real results are as follows - 61.4 percent unconditionally trust the court, 12.3 percent do not trust, 26.3 percent found it difficult to answer. This ratio is consistent with the results of other studies. I think this is a real number. We must proceed from the fact that in court there are always two sides, one of which turns out to be the loser. Probably, a person who loses a court case will not speak well of the judicial system as a whole. But the most important criterion is that people go to court to protect their constitutional civil rights. 220 - 230 thousand per year, and this figure is constantly growing. The second important criterion is how people appeal court decisions. Only 4 percent of those 220,000 subsequently disagree with the court decision! The rest, it turns out, the decision of the court is quite satisfied. When we assess the trust in Belarusian justice in general, we must rely not only on social studies, but take into account all the criteria I have named in aggregate.

- What can be said about the judicial personnel?

The answer to this question can be identified as the next task of the justice of the future - improving the quality of the judiciary. Speaking objectively, the average level of preparedness of our judges today cannot satisfy. The commercial legal education that young people are receiving en masse in recent years is not of the highest quality. People with such a diploma can conduct litigation purely mechanically, but they lack panoramic thinking, they lack an analytical mindset, they lack a high cultural level, general erudition, and even a rich vocabulary. There are problems with judges who speak Belarusian, a foreign language, there are not many specialists with academic degrees. Therefore, today's task is to strengthen the requirements for the selection of candidates for the judicial robe. For them, psychological testing is being introduced at the Academy of Management under the President. The conditions of special checks are being tightened. Particular attention will be paid to the ability to work in public conditions. Unfortunately, not every even a very competent lawyer can properly conduct an open public process, be in public. And now we need just such personnel who will adequately represent the Belarusian justice and be able to withstand the psychological pressure that has increased many times with the advent of the Internet.

* * *

- Valentin Olegovich, at the beginning of our conversation you said that the reformers of the 19th century were faced with the task of making the court merciful. Can we say that Belarusian justice has become more humane in recent years?

This is a very painful issue. Because, unfortunately, I cannot say that the court has become more humane. Yet, in the structure of criminal penalties, 30 percent of sentences are still related to deprivation of liberty. Plus, 16 percent of arrests indirectly relate to this indicator - although this is a short-term, but still imprisonment. Of course, in Soviet times, imprisonment reached 40 percent, but today we must be equal to European standards, and our indicators still lag behind them.

- Why is this happening? Can't judges be less harsh in sentencing?

Here you are now repeating the popular philistine point of view, as if only judges are to blame for harsh sentences. But believe me, the judges do not have a psychological orientation to harsh verdicts. Even from a sentencing point of view, it is technically much more difficult to justify a deprivation of liberty than an alternative punishment. More serious motivation is needed, so it would be easier for judges to assign other types of punishment. But the layman misses many other factors that dominate the judge, mainly legislative ones. For example, the country has a very high level of recidivism - last year it was 38 percent. That is, in almost half of the cases, people who have previously been in conflict with the law appear before the court. And according to all norms of criminal law in such cases, the new court verdict should be tougher than the previous one. In this case, the judge simply has no other choice, he cannot assign a lenient sentence, otherwise he himself will violate the law. In addition, we must take into account that life constantly throws us new challenges that require tougher responsibility for certain types of crimes. And the legislator goes for it, listening, among other things, to public opinion.

- Do you mean drunk driving?

Not only this. When in the country, you remember, there was a surge in drug-related crimes, a decision was made to seriously increase the responsibility for them. The courts cannot interpret this in their own way, they are obliged to comply with the law. As a result, of course, this is immediately felt in the structure of criminal penalties. As well as the decision to toughen punishments for bribe-takers, drunk drivers, persistent non-payers of alimony ... I would like everyone to understand that judges are executors of the current legislation, in their decisions they are guided solely by the law, and not by any personal preferences. Another thing is that we - including society - should take a more responsible approach to interference in the Criminal Code in order to avoid an imbalance between certain types of crimes, to prevent violating the proportions of responsibility. However, in terms of the development of the judicial system for five years, there is a thesis that judges should strive to select punishments that are not related to deprivation of liberty, when possible.

- Are we talking about changing the existing judicial practice?

Let's put it differently - about focusing on less punitive, repressive justice, about giving it the character of a conciliatory, restorative institution. Of course, within the framework of the current legislation, although I do not rule out our initiatives to mitigate penalties and decriminalize certain elements of crime. You see, I would like society to perceive the word "justice" as a synonym for the word "justice".

It's complicated. The concept of justice, probably, everyone has their own ... The most legitimate decision will certainly seem unfair to those who lost the court.

Last December, I took part in the 9th Congress of Judges of the Russian Federation, where an interesting discussion on this topic arose. It turned out that many foreign experts do not perceive justice as a legal term at all. This word is not found in legal dictionaries, therefore, in foreign jurisprudence, justice is considered a philosophical, social, evaluative concept. I then said, and I remain of this opinion, that justice is an assessment of a court decision not only from a purely legal point of view, but also from the point of view of moral, ethical, ethical standards. Not the assessment of the parties, whose concept of justice can really be diametrically opposed, but the public perception of the verdict. The difficulty is to achieve a balance between legal and public assessment. This is a very difficult issue, however, all Belarusian courts are aimed at ensuring that their decisions are perceived by the majority of people as fair. Despite the fact that justice is not a legal term, we have introduced this concept into our procedural rules. They directly indicate how the judge should be guided in making a decision: the verdict must be motivated, reasonable, legal and fair. These four postulates, I am sure, will remain the unchanging motto of our justice.

"Belarusian partisan" continues to publish a gallery of portraits of senior officials of Belarus, directly related to the establishment of a brutal regime of power Alexandra Lukashenko. Today we will talk about the irreplaceable Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus Valentina Sukalo.

If you use vocabulary Lukashenka, then Valentina Sukalo could be called a "unique person". In a sense, he is really unique for the Belarusian authorities: a 69-year-old man faithfully serves Lukashenka for the second decade. He is the only long-liver in such a high position. What is the secret of the indispensability of the chief Belarusian judge, for what reasons the official who has long exceeded the maximum limit of public service continues to work and why the Belarusian president trusts him so much "Belarusian Partisan" tried to figure it out.

This Lukashenka "elder" leads a rather modest lifestyle, neither he nor his family members appear in any major scandals. He loves peace and comfort near the fireplace in Drozdy, personal bodyguards come only early in the morning. Valentin Olegovich he realizes and understands his actual status and treats many things philosophically, knowing that theoretically only one person has the right to wake him up. He rarely participates in official, especially entertainment events.

At Sukalo a classic biography of a successful Soviet-era judge. Born on August 16, 1942 in Minsk, he served in the army, worked as a turner for several years, after graduating from the Belarusian State University in 1968 he became a judge of the Myadel district court, four years later he moved to work in the Minsk regional court, five years later he headed this court. In 1984, a member of the CPSU Valentin Sukalo became Deputy Minister of Justice of the BSSR, and three years later headed the main department of general courts of the Ministry of Justice of the Soviet Union. In the late 80s, he was both the Minister of Justice of the BSSR and the head of the state-legal department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the BSSR.

Peak career growth Valentina Sukalo came in 1989, when a judge from Belarus became the first deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR. However, the Soviet Union collapsed and Valentin Olegovich was forced to return to his homeland. And in 1992, with a clear demotion, he became Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus.

It should be noted that the judge in the truest sense of the word Valentin Sukalo worked for only a few years in Myadel and the Minsk Regional Court. He made his career as a skilled apparatchik, and loyalty to the Communist Party was the determining factor in his career growth at that time. However, in the 1990s, the former communist Sukalo he got his bearings in time and managed to establish trusting relations with the new leader of Belarus. In October 1994, the young president Lukashenka appointed Valentin Olegovich Minister of Justice of Belarus.

After the dramatic events of late 1996, which resulted in the establishment of an authoritarian regime in Belarus Lukashenka, in January 1997 Valentin Sukalo the president entrusted the key position of the chairman of the Supreme Court.

For almost 15 years now Valentin Olegovich personifies Belarusian justice. We do not undertake to evaluate professional qualities Valentin Olegovich as a judge, but his achievements as head of the Supreme Court are evident. Most likely, this is the secret of his exceptional career longevity.

Only a list of illegal and politically motivated sentences that Belarusian judges pass under the vigilant control of the chairman of the Supreme Court will take several pages. Belarusian regime represented by subordinates Sukalo judges brutally crack down on politicians, journalists, human rights activists and people objectionable to the Belarusian authorities.

Belarusian justice under Lukashenka- an important element of the existing state regime. For many years there has been no separation of powers in Belarus, even the current version of the Constitution does not provide for the classical system of "checks and balances" in the legal sense, which exists in all civilized states.

Legislative, executive and judicial power have long existed in one person - the President Lukashenka. In this context, the meaning and role of the same Sukalo should be evaluated in some sense conditionally, first of all, as a devoted comrade-in-arms Lukashenka, fulfilling all presidential orders and wishes.

Many years Valentin Olegovich quite rarely appears in public, even more rarely he gives interviews. In the summer of 2011, he finally spoke out, and we will pay attention to some of his statements. After the very first simple question about how one can evaluate the work of Belarusian judges, the Chairman of the Supreme Court began to say rather strange things: “I am not a supporter of self-assessments of the activities of the system that I head”.

In general, self-esteem is an assessment of oneself, one's behavior, personal qualities, abilities ... And the work of the "system" that you head is simply obliged to evaluate. How else? How to manage it? But then even more interesting, a nostalgic phrase: “Purely statistical indicators of the quality of justice in the past six months are outwardly stable and positive... You know that on June 3, the President of the country held an expanded meeting of heads of general courts at all levels on the problems of improving the efficiency of the courts of general jurisdiction”.

Such phrases are rooted in our Soviet past: there is the activity of the courts, which is, as it were, effective, but the level of this efficiency is somewhat confusing. Why does this conclusion follow? Yes, it is very simple, since we are talking about the need to increase this very efficiency. But there were some unforeseen problems. These problems myself Sukalo could not, apparently, decide in working order and the intervention of the president was required.

Also Valentin Olegovich lamented: “Unfortunately, the prestige of the profession of a judge has been declining lately. First of all, because the degree of responsibility and emotional overload is very high, and the degree of material support for judges is no higher than, for example, that of a prosecutor or a lawyer.”.

High workload and low financial support - are the main reasons for the decline in the prestige of the profession of a judge or should the reasons be sought in something else? At the same time, judges rarely retire in Belarus, and they are even less likely to be fired.

They say, Sukalo has repeatedly asked the president to send-let him retire due to serious health problems, however Lukashenka no less convincingly asked him to stay. According to other data, Sukalo, despite his age, continues to be quite cheerful and when meeting with Lukashenka repeats the iconic phrase of a well-known communist that "the devil wants to work."

Sukalo enjoys maximum trust Lukashenka. The President ordered him not to listen to anyone on key and resonant actions, and to be guided solely by his personal instructions. With such carte blanche Sukalo Indeed, for many years, he has not listened to anyone's opinion. Even the almighty could not directly influence this old man Sheiman, who was forced to convey his important "recommendations" through the president. Sukalo he has long looked absolutely indifferent to all such attempts to add bosses to him, especially from those who are suitable for his grandchildren Viktor Lukashenko or Natalia Petkevich.

Many high-ranking officials shun the sullen old man, and he has many more internal enemies than friends. He is not included in any nomenklatura grouping in Belarus and does not play along with any of them. Except Lukashenka, the rest of the Belarusian elite has Valentin Olegovich nothing more than a service, often difficult relationship.

It is known, for example, that, to put it mildly, strained relations with Sukalo were with the former Attorney General Grigory Vasilevich. When and why a cat ran between the former Chairman of the Constitutional Court, the former Prosecutor General and the irremovable head of the Supreme Court, it is difficult to say, but it remains a fact. Professor and Doctor of Law Vasilevich for some reason, he can’t stand the judge of the Soviet hardening. Sukalo reciprocates him.

Although the spouse Vasilevich works in the Supreme Court as an ordinary judge and, unable to fire the attorney general's wife, Sukalo does not miss the moment to insert the "hairpin" to the wife of his ill-wisher. For example, when discussing specific cases at meetings and asking the opinion of subordinate judges, all subordinates Sukalo addresses by name and patronymic, but only to the wife of the Prosecutor General, he defiantly addresses as follows: "And what can you say about this, comrade Vasilevich?" . Stories about Judge Vasilevich's constant skirmishes with Valentin Olegovich in the Supreme Court they tell instead of new jokes. At the same time, the appointment of the former Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court as the new Prosecutor General Alexandra Konyuka many regard it as a victory Valentina Sukalo in this intradepartmental confrontation with Vasilevich.

devoted Lukashenka Valentin Sukalo will go down in the modern history of Belarus as the personification of Belarusian justice under the regime Lukashenka when Belarusian judges condemn a mute man for swearing, and a one-armed man for clapping his hands.

It is at Valentina Sukalo Belarusian judges illegally send dozens of people to prison who are recognized by the international community as political prisoners.

Valentin Olegovich holds the highest civil servant class, by military standards the rank of Colonel General. This watchdog of the regime, the judicial "general" in civilian clothes, is one of the main culprits of the lawlessness and arbitrariness observed in the country during the reign Alexandra Lukashenko. He expects to spend his last years quietly, warming himself by the fireplace. But on his deathbed, the souls of the innocently convicted will surely come to him, and it will be very difficult for him to leave. This is a dialectic, not our threat. And the last terrible moments will cross out all the years of quiet service Valentina Sukalo. Unenviable share.

Now we are analyzing all the complaints that are received in cases already considered. There are few of them. To date, 9 complaints only. And they are now being studied in the Minsk city court. After the Minsk City Court examines it, it will express its position. Notice any irregularities and make appropriate adjustments. If not, the ruling will remain in effect. After that, the decision can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

And if the Minsk City Court establishes based on these complaints that the judge issued an incorrect decision, will preventive work be carried out with the judges?

And we punish and bring to disciplinary responsibility. If the judge is guilty, of course.

According to Valentin Olegovich, complaints will be considered by mid-April.

You have noticed a trend that under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of the procedure for organizing or holding mass events”) they were given fines, and now there are many days. Is there such a recommendation? Why has the practice changed?

Nobody can give any recommendations to the courts. This is clear. And it never is. The court assesses the situation itself. The very nature of the offences, I think so. The judge assesses the degree of public danger of these offenses. And if these are people in masks, with special items, people with spray cans, if they deliberately go to the action in order to commit offenses, then, of course, the public danger of these violations increases. And the court is obliged to give a tougher assessment of such offenses.

It's hard for me to say in specific cases. But I say again that the court evaluates the general nature of offenses, their public danger. If the court considers that in this case some monetary sanctions are not enough, it imposes an administrative penalty in the form of fines. And then by personality: they look at what kind of people. Perhaps they have already been repeatedly brought to administrative responsibility.

The Chairman of the Supreme Court was asked about the political scientist Ales Logvinets, who was sentenced to 10 days for petty hooliganism. Recall that the activist was detained on March 23. During the trial, an ambulance was called to Logvinets. The hospital diagnosed TBI and a broken nose. As OMON officers stated at the trial, Logvinets fought against the car seat.

It probably didn't happen in court. And what happened during the arrest, we cannot comment.

This will be checked by the prosecutor's office when complaining about the actions of police officers.

- Aren't you ashamed of the work of the Belarusian courts? journalists asked Valentin Sukalo.

You know, there are criteria, there are international assessments.

Valentin Olegovich does not agree with the fact that in past administrative trials, judges handed down sentences, taking into account false testimony. And he entered into a discussion with a journalist:

This, in your opinion, is false, you think so, - said Valentin Olegovich.

- And if there was video evidence ...

This is how you evaluate the evidence. But the court assessed this evidence differently.

- That is, the phrase "I am a journalist!" Does that count as foul language now?(We are talking about the journalist of the Belsat TV channel Alexander Barazenka. He was given 15 days of arrest. - Ed.)

If this is an accredited journalist, if there is a certificate, if there are any special signs, then this is a journalist. And if this is a freelancer who has nothing: no certificate, no accreditation, then this is not a journalist. And this is how the Belarusian Association of Journalists interprets it.

According to Valentin Sukalo, in the international rating, civil justice of Belarus ranks 30th, and criminal justice - 49th out of 200.

Q For whom is the position of the supreme judge of Belarus protected?

I dreamed that I was in court. And everything is against me, although I am a prosecutor. But they have another prosecutor, here he is, or rather, she is against it. Only the judge, also she, seems to be interested. My case is complicated and I intend to file a motion to simulate the crime event on a mock-up right in the courtroom, oh. This is what happened tonight. A person who is aware of all kinds of heromancy would have long ago drawn conclusions, but I am not aware, I sit, stupidly thinking.
P Sukalo Valentin Olegovich is the Chairman of the Supreme Court. He was born already in 1942, he has a corresponding biography - a burnt-out party member, a veteran of all nomenklatura battles from the creation of the republic, and even during her time - he still distinguished himself in the eseseria. Here: http://www.court.by/sup_court/chmn/ffae9fc37ee19f20.html. I recently reported to the President on the successful completion of the judicial reform: I united all the courts into one system. Why before this disconnected - remained the public, which is in the subject, and not understood. More precisely, they copy everything to make it like in Russia; their own in their head - nothing at all. They also created an investigative committee after the Russians, but here is just the most interesting topic for my stupid research.
T ok here. There are two indelible shameful stains in the history of domestic justice. They are hushed up, but, meanwhile, they need to be taught as separate subjects in law faculties. This is the case of serial killer Mikhasevich, for whose crimes a bunch of innocent people were convicted, including the use of the death penalty, and the case of Konovalov-Kovalev, who blew up the Minsk metro, for which innocent people were also convicted. Everything happened so vilely because of the falsification of the investigation by the police and the indulgence of the inquiry and investigation by the court.
E Even before A. Lukashenko came to power, a systematic judicial reform began in the country, which involved the creation of a jury, an independent investigation. But Lukashenko turned these innovations as unnecessary and returned everything to the state of a late scoop. As a result, he received disgrace in the Konovalov case, in which he had to rehabilitate illegally convicted. And now let's see who has been at the head of the judicial system all these years? Our hero stood, yes.
I can’t explain his longevity among the inhabitants of Drozdy, but there is something behind him. It is currently hosting election observers from the OSCE. There is no need for us to look at Mr. Sukalo, but look at the "observers": they are listening about the independence of the judiciary and non-interference in the electoral process; kindergarten, and only ( pictured below ).

BUT Sukalo, according to my stupid thoughts, should have been responsible for all the shame in the Konovalov case, up to criminal liability, perhaps. Because such a long-term criminal activity of Konovalov was possible only because the courts stamped sentences on the innocent, and the real criminal calmly riveted bombs in his basement. But the background of a devoted party member saves from any troubles.
M perhaps some other trouble awaits us, for the control of which they cherish Valentin Olegovich, who has survived all the terms of public service established by law in his post. Or save a place for someone chosen until he gains experience and skills in hardware dexterity. The second option seems to me more reasonable. But who knows what reins are driving the tail of our All-People's Chosen One...