The well-known Latin maxim of Roman jurisprudence, Omne jus hominum causa constitutum est (“All law is established for the sake of human beings”), remains an enduring expression of the human-centred orientation of a democratic legal order. In the context of democratic transformations within the Ukrainian political and legal system at the end of the twentieth century and Ukraine’s gradual approximation to European human rights standards, the adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine introduced a new legal institution – the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter – the Commissioner, Ombudsman), entrusted with the function of parliamentary oversight over the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms. The institution of the Commissioner, as a phenomenon of modern constitutionalism, has attracted the attention of numerous Ukrainian legal scholars, including Yu. Todyka, Yu. Barabash, O. Martseliak, O. Maidannyk, V. Tatsii, Yu. Shemshuchenko, M. Tsvik, N. Karpachova, O. Shevchuk and others. At the same time, the issue of the Commissioner’s acts of response as instruments of parliamentary oversight has been addressed only fragmentarily in the scholarly works of O. Martseliak, B. Melekh, O. Nikolska, A. Bahmet and other researchers. While highly appreciating the scholarly contribution made to the study of the Commissioner’s acts of response, it is reasonable to emphasise the necessity of their further analytical reconsideration through the prism of their recommendatory and interpretative legal nature. Such a research framework presupposes clarification of their normative-guiding potential within the system of constitutional law acts; determination of their influence on the development of legal enforcement practice; delineation of the boundaries of the socalled “soft law nature and persuasive authority” in the absence of formal general binding effect; and examination of their role in the constitutional concretisation of fundamental rights and freedoms. The purpose of the study is to provide a conceptual reconsideration of the imperativeness of the Commissioner’s acts of response beyond the formal dichotomy of “binding/non-binding” by substantiating the institutionally grounded obligation to take them into account, deriving from the constitutional status of the Ombudsman as a specialised subject of parliamentary oversight. The methodological framework of the research is based on a combination of general scientific and special legal methods, including systemic-structural, comparative-legal, formal-legal (dogmatic), and hermeneutic methods, as well as analysis and synthesis as methods of scientific inquiry. As a result of the conducted research, the author has developed a comprehensive doctrinal understanding of the Commissioner’s response acts as recommendatory-interpretative quasinormative acts within the system of constitutional law, which function within the paradigmatic framework of “soft law” and represent an institutionally legitimised form of legal influence lacking formal imperativeness. A comprehensive differentiation of acts of response has been carried out according to the criteria of their legal nature, addressees, and functional purpose. The study substantiates a standard of substantive justification for responses to the Commissioner’s acts of response as an instrument aimed at overcoming formalism in legal practice and ensuring substantive consideration of the Ombudsman’s position. In addition, proposals have been formulated concerning the improvement of legislative regulation of the relevant institution, alongside the author’s interpretation of the legal definition of the “position of the Commissioner”.

Authored books

1. Buck T, Kirkham R, Thompson B, The Ombudsman Enterprise and Administrative Justice (Routledge 2010) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315555034.

Edited books

2. James R, Morris P, ‘The new Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom: has the second generation got it right?’ in C E F Rickett, T G W Telfer (eds), International Perspectives on Consumers’ Access to Justice (Cambridge University Press 2003) 167–195 https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511494833.010.

Journal articles

3. Kirkham R, ‘Explaining the lack of enforcement power possessed by the ombudsman’ [2008] 30(3) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 253–263 https://doi. org/10.1080/09649060802550733.

4. Kirkham R, ‘Implementing the recommendations of an ombudsman … again’ [2011] 33(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 71–83 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2011.571

5. Kirkham R, Thompson B, Buck T, ‘Putting the Ombudsman into Constitutional Context’ [2009] 62(4) Parliamentary Affairs 600–617 https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsp024.

6. Martseliak OV, ‘Akty reahuvannia Upovnovazhenoho z prav liudyny Ukrainy’ [2002] 4 Pravo i Bezpeka 30–34 (in Ukrainian).

7. Melekh B, ‘Efektyvnist form vplyvu Upovnovazhenoho Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy z prav liudyny na shliakhu yevropeiskoi intehratsii’ [2014] 25 Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravo 48–52 (in Ukrainian).

Encyclopaedias

8. Fabbricotti A, Venturini C, ‘Ombudsperson’ (Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, July 2019) (accessed 03.04.2026).

Newspaper articles

9. Barvitskyi V, ‘Konstytutsiine podannia yak zasib zakhystu prav liudyny i hromadianyna’ (Iurydychna hazeta № 12(742) 2021) (accessed 07.05.2026) (in Ukrainian).

10. Shevchuk O, ‘Arkhetyp instytutsii Ombudsmana Ukrainy, abo vartovyi liudskykh prav u natsionalnii tradytsii’ (Iurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy № 8(1567) 16–30 kvitnia 2026 roku) 22– 23 (accessed 07.05.2026) (in Ukrainian).