Calls for Radical Reform of Ukraine’s Justice Procedures

Ukrainian law enforcement authorities have initiated over 211,000 criminal proceedings into Russian war crimes in Ukraine, with more than 250,000 people already officially recognised as victims.

Given the unprecedented strain on the justice system, experts are calling for radical reform of Ukraine’s justice procedures. They argue that solutions including reforming investigative approaches, prioritising cases and adapting evidence collection laws could boost the state’s capacity to process these cases.

One ongoing issue is the critical shortage of resources within Ukraine’s law enforcement system, which means that crucial evidence is going undocumented.

Andrii Yakovliev, an expert on international criminal law at the Media Initiative for Human Rights NGO, warned that evidence should be secured as early as possible to prevent the loss of crucial details.

“Witnesses and victims relocate or pass away and memory gradually distorts the details of what they experienced,” he said.

Dmytro Dzhyma, a lawyer at the Dynamic Association of People NGO, which documents war crimes, also highlighted the large number of un-interviewed witnesses in ongoing cases.

He noted that often, it is only after being interviewed by human rights defenders that witnesses file a police report, which prompts their case to be entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.

This applied not only to human testimony but also physical evidence, which deteriorates over time.

Dzhyma noted a March 2022 case in which a women identified as Yevheniia and her ten-year-old son were wounded during the shelling of Chernihiv. The boy later died in hospital.

Investigators opened a criminal case into the incident in the spring of 2022, after the region was liberated. However, the impact site was not examined until a year later, by which time much of the evidence had disappeared.

Yakovliev said that structural changes in how criminal cases were investigated could also make them more effective, for instance focusing on key decision-makers as they were easier to identify within the military hierarchy.

Currently, many investigations attribute war crimes to individual perpetrators, most often rank-and-file Russian soldiers, which obscures the role of commanders and organisers.

Many incidents show evidence of a joint criminal enterprise involving numerous individuals, spanning everything from planning and issuing orders to direct. Such actions, Yakovliev argued, should be viewed not as isolated events.

“For example, the torture of Ukrainian POWs and their subsequent conviction in Russian courts should be seen not as separate crimes, but as consecutive stages of a single criminal enterprise sanctioned by Russia’s political leadership,” Yakovliev continued. “In this framework, torture is a preparatory step for the conviction and the Russian court rulings are a tool to legitimise the crimes already committed.”

A similar approach could be applied to the shelling of civilian targets. Often investigated as isolated incidents, they may be part of a broader operation. Therefore, investigations should extend beyond on-the-ground perpetrators to include those who planned and authorised the attack.

This increased focus on commanders and planners has both legal and preventive value. The credible prospect of prosecution can influence the conduct of the war, reinforcing the principle of the inevitability of punishment. This lays the groundwork for a systemic shift in how evidence is documented, where every detail is seen as part of a larger strategic design from high-level leadership, implemented through the army’s hierarchical structure.

Anna Stakhanova, an expert with the EU Project Pravo-Justice, which monitors war crimes trials in Ukraine, noted that such approaches were already put into practice.

“For example, cases related to the shelling of Odesa over the past six months have already been consolidated,” she said. “This has resulted in 11 volumes of material in just a single proceeding. In such cases, the individuals who gave the orders can be charged. Furthermore, if the widespread or systematic nature of these actions can be proven, it could be indicative of a crime against humanity.”

Another way to streamline the process is to apply the principle of command responsibility, Stakhanova said, noting that Ukraine’s criminal code was amended in October 2024 to codify this in line with international law.

“Previously, to hold a commander accountable, you had to prove that they knew about their subordinates’ actions or had ordered them to commit illegal acts,” she explained. “International law, however, also assigns liability if a commander ‘could have or should have known’ about it.”

Yakovliev clarified that if information about systematic attacks on civilian targets, the execution of POWs or other crimes was widely reported, a commander should act or be held responsible for inaction.

If commanders understand they face real punishment for the actions of their subordinates, it could compel them to exercise greater control and prevent war crimes.

Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office reported that a first-instance court has already issued a verdict holding a commander responsible. Additionally, two Russian commanders have been served with notices of suspicion.

Another potential way to ease the workload for investigators would be to streamline the process of incorporating evidence collected by NGOs into cases.

Such information cannot be quickly formalised under Ukraine’s current rules. Instead, it needs to be re-verified and officially documented through procedures such as on-site inspections.

Lawyer Dmytro Dzhyma said that this was excessively bureaucratic and time-consuming.

“We’re essentially doing the same work twice,” he told IWPR. “The ICC, by contrast, has a more flexible approach. Under clause 63(2) of its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the court can admit any evidence it deems relevant and necessary. Materials from NGOs are actively used to corroborate crimes. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights accepts reports from human rights organisations as evidence of systemic violations. I believe Ukraine should amend its legislation to establish a formal system for public investigations. This would ease the burden on our law enforcement agencies.”

Stakhanova agreed that current procedure was overly complicated.

“Even though Ukraine has ratified the Rome Statute, the rules of evidence for war crimes cases remain the same as those for standard peacetime criminal proceedings,” she explained. “A prosecutor has to make formal requests to an investigator or a team leader; experts should be brought in and only then can the materials be admitted as evidence. It’s a time-consuming and procedurally cumbersome process.”

The challenge is also in how evidence is documented in the digital age. Investigators need to apply standards such as the Berkeley Protocol, which requires the documentation of also metadata and technical parameters.

Law enforcement bodies also need to consider how to preserve evidence for a potential retrial, particularly important for in absentia cases.

Vladyslav Kukhta, head of the Chernihiv District Court, explained that the disposition of physical evidence was determined by the court’s verdict.

“It is either destroyed once the verdict becomes legally binding or it is kept with the case file,” he said.

Yakovliev noted the resource-intensive need to preserve physical evidence diminished once a final verdict was reached. But for in absentia convictions, that reasoning no longer applied.

“If an individual convicted in absentia is guaranteed the right to a full retrial to ensure a fair trial, the preservation of evidence takes on heightened importance,” he said.

According to the prosecutor general’s office, digital copies of criminal case files from investigations conducted under martial law are stored long-term.

During an investigation, documents and physical evidence are stored as part of the criminal case file. Pre-trial investigative bodies and the prosecutor’s office are responsible for this until the case is handed over to the court.

Supreme Court judge Mykola Mazur noted that the challenge of storing physical evidence can be addressed through thorough comprehensive photo and video documentation.

“Since war crimes are usually classified as particularly serious offences, the case files must be stored for ten years after the sentence has been served,” Kukhta concluded. “In in absentia cases, often the convicted do not serve their sentences, so such cases are kept in permanent storage.”

Project Focus Ukraine Justice Report

Locations Ukraine

Topics Law reform, War crimes, International justice