Criminal justice

The European Union acquis establishes minimum standards through the following instruments: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence, prohibition of double punishment, right to personal liberty, and personal integrity; EU Directives (right to a lawyer, right to keep silent, right to an interpreter, etc.); case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (in the context of Article 5, 6, 7, 8, and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); as well as relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, which applied and interpreted relevant Articles of the Charter and secondary legislation; and Council of Europe Recommendations addressing pre-trial detention, detention conditions, and victims’ rights.

This section addresses only criminal justice issues related to guaranteeing and protecting human rights.

Text as of March 2026

Based on research and human rights practice, the following problems of criminal justice can be distinguished in Ukraine:

Facts of death during military service, in detention facilities, or caused by law-enforcement officers, etc. (substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life: Sergey Shevchenko, Misendz, Shabratskyy and Shabratska, Gongadze, Shmorgunov and Others, Yukhymovych).
Actions by law enforcement agencies and the inefficiency of investigating reported offenses (in particular, pressure on the accused to confess, failure to conduct effective investigations of crime reports—Khaylo, Fedorchenko, and Lozenko, and Karter group of cases).
Lawfulness of detention and related issues (in particular, legality and duration of detention, excessive use of this preventive measure, inadequate regulation of the alternatives to detention, abuse of detention without a court order, failure to inform about the detention or its reasons, formal review of authorizations for detention and the lack of the right to compensation—Ignatov, Lutsenko, Kharchenko, Yeloyev group of cases).
The right to a fair trial in the criminal proceedings (limited access to free legal aid, frequent lack of translation, case duration, and lack of remedies, Merit group of cases, insufficient dependence of the judicial system on the executive power, etc., Sytnyk).
A critical shortage of judges, their heavy workload, significant funding gaps, and uneven case distribution undermine the quality and timeliness of criminal proceedings.
Protection against ill-treatment and other forms of cruel treatment by police and other law-enforcement agencies (extortion of confession and lack of effective investigation of complaints about it, Kaverzin, Karabet and Others, Shmorgunov and Others groups of cases).
Inadequate detention conditions in pre-trial detention centers and other detention facilities (overcrowding, ill-treatment of the detainees, use of special means, lack of meals during transfers, and no legal remedies against it (Sukachov, Melnik, Nevmerzhitsky, Yakovenko groups of cases), lack of or late medical assistance in detention facilities (groups of cases Logvinenko, Isayev, Katz and others).
Inadequate level of cooperation with the ECtHR (cases of Naydyon, Vasiliy Ivashchenko, Salakhov and Islyamova).
Lack of a comprehensive mechanism to protect victims of violent crimes.
The main human rights violations recognized by ECtHR judgments against Ukraine in the field of criminal justice.
- Article 3 of the ECHR: concerning facts of ill-treatment during interrogations to obtain confessions, inadequate detention conditions in pre-trial detention centers (overcrowding, lack of ventilation, medical assistance, no medical help to detainees).
- Article 5 of the ECHR: concerning facts of illegal or excessive detention, formal “standard” court decisions to continue arrest without real justification, the lack of timely judicial control over the detention, and excessive duration of court consideration).
- Article 6 of the ECHR: concerning facts of using as evidence confessions obtained without a lawyer present, dependence of courts on the executive authorities and the prosecutor’s office, excessive duration of court proceedings (Yukhymovych), denial in calling defense witnesses, the problem of court decision reconsideration by the Supreme Court (Yaremenko 2, Shabelnik).
- Article 8 of the ECHR: in the context of conducting covert investigative activities, searches without a court order, insufficient legal remedies (Koval, Denysyuk, Korniyets and Others, Sytnyk).

What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:

Urgently address the shortage of judges, especially in appellate criminal courts, by speeding up the competitive selection process.
Continue implementing the electronic case management system in the criminal justice chain (SMEREKA) to increase efficiency and transparency.
Introduce mandatory video recording of interrogations as a guarantee against coercion to confessions.
Ensure the individual identification of all employees of law enforcement agencies (Police, NABU, SSU, SBI, and others) and representatives of AFU (including TRSSC) and the National Guard during public operations.
Implement effective measures to address issues related to informal prison hierarchies, including a thorough investigation of violence among prisoners.
Incorporate the norms of the Rome Statute into Ukrainian law and update the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes. A draft law addressing these changes has been prepared by a working group within the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Devise specific procedural guarantees for criminal proceedings during martial law, particularly regarding in-absentia proceedings, access to lawyers, and effective appeals. A draft law addressing these issues has been prepared by a working group within the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Amend the legislation to ensure the effective protection of witnesses and victims of international and other grave crimes.

Concerning the reform of the institute of administrative offenses in Ukraine, in light of the requirements of the EU acquis and the ECtHR case law, it is necessary to:

Adopt a new Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses instead of the current CUAO of 1984. The existing Code was established during the Soviet era and does not reflect the realities of a democratic, rule-of-law state (draft law No. 11386, registered on June 28, 2024).
Ensure a clear distinction between criminal and administrative offenses (misdemeanors). Certain administrative offenses under the Code of Administrative Offenses, particularly those punishable by administrative arrest, are inherently “criminal charges” as defined by Article 6 of the ECHR. This designation mandates the full application of fair trial guarantees. The new Code should systematically take this practice into account when determining the limits of administrative liability.
Align proceedings in cases of administrative offenses with the standards set by Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). The current Code of Administrative Offenses does not always ensure effective judicial review of decisions made by administrative bodies with full jurisdiction.
Abolish administrative arrest as a form of administrative penalty or greatly restrict its use, ensuring complete procedural safeguards. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses, administrative arrest (up to 15 days) is considered a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR. According to the Engel criteria, it also constitutes a “criminal charge” under Article 6 of the ECHR, which requires comprehensive procedural safeguards, such as the right to a lawyer, the presumption of innocence, and the right to question witnesses. The ECtHR case law confirms that even short-term deprivation of liberty during disciplinary or administrative proceedings may fall within the criminal guarantees of the Convention.
Consolidate all regulations governing administrative offenses into a single Code, removing them from other legislative acts. Currently, the elements of administrative offenses are scattered across numerous specialized laws, complicating their application and undermining the principle of lex certa, which the ECtHR considers part of the rule of law.
Implement the principle of proportionality of sanctions in accordance with the case law of the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the EU. The new Code should establish distinct categories of fines (the draft Code of Administrative Offenses proposes 10 categories) based on the gravity of the offense, rather than relying on outdated fixed amounts that have lost their deterrent effect due to inflation.
Recognize legal entities as subjects of administrative liability, a standard practice within EU Member States. The current CAOU, based on the Soviet system, recognizes only individuals and officials as subjects. This does not align with modern realities and complicates the enforcement of the EU acquis in the fields of environmental protection, competition, and consumer rights protection, where holding legal entities administratively liable is the norm.
Arrange the system of subjects authorized to consider cases on administrative offenses. Under the current CAOU, cases are handled by more than 40 categories of bodies (from courts to various inspectorates), creating a chaotic, non-transparent system. According to the rule-of-law principle and Council of Europe standards, administrative offenses should fall solely under the authority of administrative bodies (such as executive authorities and local governments), which must also have the mandatory right to appeal to a court of full jurisdiction.
Ensure proper procedural guarantees in administrative offense proceedings, in particular: the right to legal aid (including free legal aid), the right to be informed of the charges in a language a person understands, adequate time to prepare a defense, and the right to question witnesses. These guarantees are set out in Article 6 of the ECHR and in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Align administrative legislation with the ne bis in idem principle (prohibition of double punishment), enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (Bonda, Menci, Garlsson Real Estate) and the ECtHR (A and B v. Norway) requires that in cases where the administrative penalty is “criminal,” the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same act be observed. The current Code of Administrative Offenses lacks clear mechanisms to prevent double jeopardy when a single act may be qualified as both an administrative and a criminal offense.

Regarding the articles on dignity, life, liberty, and protection from torture in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Ukraine needs to:

Ensure effective investigations into deaths, torture, and ill-treatment in detention facilities, as well as into attacks on journalists and other grave and violent crimes.
Eliminate arbitrary detention by ending unregistered detentions, detentions beyond legal terms, and detention without proper grounds. Introduce an effective appeal mechanism and add legal safeguards concerning detentions without a court order.
Review the grounds for detention by ensuring genuine alternatives, especially for minors, and timely release after bail is posted. Additionally, further regulate bail, particularly concerning its different forms.
Improve detention condition standards and establish an effective mechanism for reviewing complaints, particularly regarding medical care.
Regulate the use of force by law enforcement agencies and special forces—only in cases of extreme need with proper control.
Improve guarantees during psychiatric hospitalization and forensic psychiatric examinations.
Introduce compensation for unlawful detention.

Regarding the EU Directives on the rights and compensation of crime victims, Ukraine needs to:

Adopt a comprehensive law on victims’ rights that aligns with Directive 2012/29/EU and guarantees: individual vulnerability assessments, systematic updates on case progress, re-victimization prevention, and access to specialized support services.
Legally guarantee the right to compensation for victims of intentional violent crimes, regardless of their citizenship.
Establish a specialized institutional mechanism to advise victims and consider their applications for compensation.
Ensure victims are fully informed about their rights, the progress of their case, and available support, including legal aid and other assistance, physical protection, and privacy safeguards.
Create a unified data collection and monitoring system for victims.

Regarding the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, Ukraine needs to:

Legally differentiate between interpretation and translation as distinct services that require different qualifications.
Introduce a regulatory regime for translators in criminal cases by analogy with free legal aid lawyers, including mandatory training in legal terminology.
establish a translation quality standard and define its non-compliance as grounds for challenging the evidence and replacing the translator.
Establish a minimum list of documents subject to mandatory translation for a suspect or an accused.
Guarantee free interpretation and translation under any circumstances.

Regarding the EU Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Ukraine needs to:

Require that questioning of a witness must stop if the person becomes a suspect, and their rights must be explained right away. Any statements collected in violation of this rule should not be used as evidence.
Provide complete, tailored written explanations of rights—separately for detainees and children.
Compile such explanations using clear and plain language, involving linguists, not just lawyers.
Guarantee early access to case files for detainees and those at risk of detention to ensure sufficient time for defense.
Establish the minimum list of case files available to a suspect at the pre-trial stage, and introduce an effective mechanism for appealing the denial of access through the investigating judge.

Regarding the EU Directives on the right to access to a lawyer, free legal aid, and protection of vulnerable persons, Ukraine needs to:

Ensure in practice the confidentiality of communication between a lawyer and a client at all stages of the proceedings, especially within the premises of the police, other law enforcement agencies, and the court.
Ensure that the refusal of the right to a lawyer is unambiguous, conscious, and voluntary.
Increase the level of remuneration for lawyers providing free legal aid to a fair level.
Oblige investigation agencies, prosecutors, and courts to proactively identify vulnerable individuals who, due to psychological, intellectual, physical, or cognitive impairments, are unable to fully participate in the proceedings.
Make sure that vulnerable persons receive all procedural guarantees and, if they are arrested or detained, that they receive additional protection.

Regarding the EU Directive on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial, Ukraine needs to:

Enact legislation prohibiting public officials from making statements about the involvement of specific individuals in crimes, except in clearly defined cases of extreme necessity and only in a measured and proportionate manner.
Introduce mandatory training for judges, prosecutors, investigators, and journalists on human rights standards and ethical practices in reporting on criminal proceedings.
Enshrine that physical restrictions in the courtroom, such as glass barriers, are permitted only in exceptional cases for safety, to prevent escape, or to avoid contact with third parties.
Revise the Civil Code provisions regarding criminal proceedings coverage to align with ECtHR case law.

Regarding the EU Directive on the European Investigation Order, Ukraine needs to:

Ensure that any person whose rights or interests are affected by the European Investigation Order has a legally guaranteed and effective means to challenge it in court.
Ensure the ability to verify in court whether such an order is legal, necessary, and proportionate, and guarantee the right to compensation if it is issued or enforced unlawfully.
Establish that in the absence of such an appeal mechanism, the order cannot be issued.

Regarding the Regulation on electronic evidence and its preservation in criminal proceedings and on the execution of prison sentences, it is necessary to:

Implement EU Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Ensure mandatory legal representation by a child’s lawyer at all stages, conduct individual assessments for each child suspect, require audiovisual recording of all interrogations, limit deprivation of liberty to a measure of last resort, and provide specialized training for judges and prosecutors.
Regarding the protection of personal data in criminal proceedings. Align the legislation with Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of personal data in the context of criminal proceedings.

Reform the institute of forensic examination in Ukraine:

Ensure the institutional independence of forensic institutions from pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and other law enforcement agencies. It is recommended to establish an independent central body, such as the National Expert Service, to coordinate forensic examinations. This body should report to the Cabinet of Ministers rather than individual departments.
Provide NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) with effective access to impartial, timely, and high-quality forensic examinations. Establishing an expert institution directly under NABU or SAP, as proposed by draft law No. 8336, is unacceptable because it undermines the independence of examination.
Demonopolize forensic examination by removing restrictions in Article 7 of the Law “On Forensic Examination,” which currently limit conducting forensic, forensic medical, and forensic psychiatric examinations solely to state institutions. This monopoly restricts parties in criminal proceedings from selecting their own expert and undermines the principle of equality of arms, a key aspect of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR (ECtHR case law: Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, Mantovanelli v. France). The scope of accredited non-state expert institutions should be broadened, ensuring proper quality control.
Implement an automated examination distribution system to promote independence, maintain objectivity, and prevent undue influence on experts.
Discontinue the substitution of forensic experts with specialists from pre-trial investigation bodies.
Provide sufficient funding and resources for forensic institutions, and increase forensic experts’ remuneration to reduce vulnerability to corruption.
Establish an effective accreditation and quality control system for expert institutions, aligning with international standards such as ISO/IEC 17025 for laboratories and the Council conclusions on the vision for European Forensic Science 2020. Establishing self-regulatory organizations in specific expert fields, with responsibility for certification and disciplinary functions, is recommended by studies on the development of forensic examination as part of European integration.
Enhance forensic expert training and re-training by engaging higher education institutions in basic instruction. Require all experts to participate in continuing professional education programs. Recent amendments to the Law “On Forensic Examination” (2024) require advanced training. However, their effective implementation depends on sufficient resources and the exchange of international experience exchange, particularly through the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI).
Ensure the defense has equal access to examination on the same terms as the prosecution. The ECtHR’s case law consistently stresses that the principle of equality of arms mandates that each party be granted a fair chance to present its case, including evidence, without facing significant disadvantages compared to the opposing side (Mantovanelli v. France, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland). The law should guarantee the defense’s right to appoint a state-funded alternative expert in cases involving free legal aid.

Observing human rights during mobilization. Develop a clear mobilization protocol that specifies who may be detained, prohibits the use of physical force without valid justification, and defines the grounds and procedures for detention during mobilization. The protocol should require timely notification of relatives about detentions, establish an independent mechanism for appealing actions by the TRSSC and police, and ensure effective investigation of any violence committed by the TRSSC. It is advisable to reconsider the use of administrative detention during mobilization, as it is not intended for preparing an administrative offense report. The ECtHR case law in cases against Ukraine (in particular the Ignatov group of cases) has already noted the abuse of administrative detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings.
Implement further safeguards to prevent expulsion or deportation of foreigners and stateless persons to countries where they may face threats to life, torture, or other forms of ill-treatment.
General measures must be fully enforced in the following cases:

Sergey Shevchenko, Misendz, Shabratskyy and Shabratska, Gongadze, Shmorgunov and Others, Yukhymovych
Khaylo, Fedorchenko and Lozenko, Karter groups of cases
Ignatov, Lutsenko groups of cases
Merit, Sytnyk groups of cases
Kaverzin, Karabet and Others, Shmorgunov and Others groups of cases
Sukachov, Melnik, Nevmerzhitsky, Yakovenko groups of cases
Logvinenko, Isayev, Katz and Others groups of cases
Naydyon, Vasiliy Ivashchenko, Salakhov and Islyamova
Kharchenko, Yeloyev
Yaremenko group of cases
Koval, Denysyuk, Korniyets and Others, Sytnyk

Additionally, see the following sections:

For a comprehensive overview of these issues and the rationale behind our recommendations, please refer to the research section, specifically the document available in Ukrainian: Criminal justice: Compliance of national human rights mechanisms with EU standards. If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.

Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the original source is included. @ 2026 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Volodymyr Petrakovskyi

Senior lecturer of the Faculty of Law of the National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”