Search

On 24 February 2022, a full-scale war broke out and martial law was introduced throughout Ukraine by Presidential Decree No. 64/2022 in connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation. The efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings during the martial law regime depends on the quality of criminal procedural rules. The armed conflict initiated and supported by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine since 2014 has created new challenges for the system of both international and national justice. The article draws attention to the fact that with the introduction of martial law in Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation, a number of significant changes were made to both the «military» section IX-1 and other sections of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The nature of violations of these provisions requires a different approach not only at the level of legal qualification, but also in the process of organisation and procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation by the prosecutor. The author emphasizes that the testimony obtained during the interrogation of a suspect, including simultaneous interrogation of two or more already interrogated persons, in criminal proceedings conducted under martial law may be used as evidence in court only if a defence counsel participated in such interrogation and the course and results of the interrogation were recorded using available video recording equipment. The author draws attention to the fact that prosecutors who provide procedural guidance in criminal proceedings concerning crimes committed in the context of armed conflict should record the testimony of victims and key witnesses, in particular, on issues relating to the role of the Russian Federation and its subordinate formations in the context of armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine, including the temporarily occupied territories. Pre-trial investigations of criminal offences committed in the context of armed conflict can take a long time, and it is therefore important for law enforcement investigators and prosecutors to take measures to preserve information, primarily the testimony of victims and witnesses. When organising procedural guidance, prosecutors should take into account the peculiarities of conducting and recording the course and results of investigative (detective) actions under martial law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the types of social relations that arose during the war in Ukraine is relations with the occupiers, which can be carried out both within the legal field and be an illegal, criminal manifestation in the form of cooperation with the enemy and assistance to him. Such illegal nature of relations with the occupiers is considered a collaborative activity. The legislator was faced with the task of determining the composition of such an offense and establishing the punishment for actions that constitute collaborationism. Despite a fairly large number of studies of individual and complex issues of criminal liability for collaborative activities, a number of questions remain open. The purpose of this study was to establish the social conditions and the existence of the necessary grounds for the criminalization of socially dangerous acts that constitute collaborative activity. In the theory of criminal law, it is clearly established which factors must be taken into account when deciding on the criminalization of a particular illegal act - they are defined as the grounds for criminalizing illegal acts: the existing (real) social danger of the act; its relative prevalence; the need for a criminal legal guarantee; fulfillment by the state of international legal obligations The above research allows us to assess the social conditionality of the criminalization of collaborative activities. First, taking into account the importance of the protected order of social relations, which is encroached upon by collaborative activity, actions containing signs of such illegal activity are socially dangerous. Secondly, official statistical data on the number of registered cases of collaborative activity and persons prosecuted under Art. 111-1, testify to the sufficient prevalence of collaborative activities on the territory of Ukraine. Thirdly, collaborative activity should be punished most severely, namely by establishing criminal liability for it. And, fourthly, the establishment of criminal liability for collaborative activities correlates with the provisions of international legal acts and ensures Ukraine’s fulfillment of relevant international legal obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]