The old Soviet law was based on the continental European Code systems (e.g., French, German and Italian systems are the usual grist for study in a Comparative Law course). There were some Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist additions - to carry out the aims of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That being said, the basic sustantive and procedural law was not that much different from what one finds in Germany. While somewhat different from the UK and US "common law" systems (which are filled with statutes and codes anyway), Russian law then (and probably now - I haven't kept up with the Russian and Ukrainian codes) was not that bad - in ordinary cases.

In fact, in ordinary criminal cases, it sometimes could give better results than our system. Besides the prosecutor and defense lawyers (who were not always competent), the Russians had an independent legal office that reviewed the case in all aspects for errors by lawyers and judges. Many cases we read resulted in reversals of decisions because of that office.

But, all such bets were off in a political case. If you were a political defendant, you were screwed - the only question was how much of a show would be produced. In all of the Great Purge Trials, the form of due process was observed, though the results were pre-ordained. Of course, those summarily executed in the Lubyanka cellers were spared that show. I suspect (but do not really know) that the old pattern may still prevail as to political trials (e.g., the fall of the oligarchs).

So, as to Ms. Tymoshenko's options, it really wouldn't matter what legal procedures were used if the cards were stacked as they used to be in the good, old days.

PS: Chinese law was even wilder - going from the Manchu system (based on the continental European Code systems in large part) to the Mao-based ChiCom system - a real innovative piece of work.