How did the War Affect the Right to Freedom?

Read Time:27 Minute, 9 Second

How did the war affect the right to freedom? We asked this question to experts who face the problem of observing the right to freedom in many ways in practice and research every day.

Mykola Polyovyi, Doctor of Political Science, Professor

In my opinion, the war after the beginning of the full-scale invasion led to: 1) attempts to “privatize” the right to freedom by evaders and pro-Russian “zhduny ” – a kind of “the fifth column“; 2) socially approved neglect of this right due to the public perception of the first value in defeating Russia, to which (the victory) almost all other rights must yield, according to socially approved opinion. This approach has a widely recognized existential justification, which in its simplest form sounds like a reminder that “whoever does not want to feed his own army feeds someone else’s.”

In a more complex form, it is a well-founded fear that in the hypothetical case of the invasion of Ukraine, its citizens would be in mortal danger. The Russian atrocities in Bucha and Mariupol further prove these fears.

It is difficult for me to say exactly how the criminal justice practitioners treat the right to liberty, but since the considerations of social expediency in criminal justice were quite strong in our country before the war, I assume that even now its practice meets the “social demand” outlined above to ensure victory at any cost, including by restricting the right to liberty.

Tetyana Kurmanova, Journalist, Chairman of the Board of Hromadske Radio

“Tatyana, why get out of a taxi a block away to your apartment: we already know perfectly well where you live“: these were the words of a taxi driver who drove me home from work in March 2014, a couple of weeks after the occupation of Crimea. No matter which taxi I called, the same one always came – a brazen “Cossack” with a Russian flag in his car. This was how we, investigative journalists from Simferopol, were made to understand that we were being watched and would not be left alone…

And Russia very quickly cleared the information field, first of all. Although it should be recalled that steps towards this were taken long before February 2014 (when we all had to answer for the lack of a consistent policy of the Ukrainian authorities towards Crimea with its problematic points: first of all, Russian military bases scattered throughout the peninsula, free movement of the military; Russia constantly sponsored and supported in every possible way a network of organizations of Russian compatriots, conferences, round tables on the topics of language and love for Russia, etc.) The field for occupation had been prepared for years.

That is why the curtailment of freedoms in Crimea since 2014 has been taking place at a frantic pace: destruction and “eradication” of independent media, forced passportization, deployment of a system of repression (fabricated political cases, torture, changes in legislation to increase the responsibility of anyone who disagrees with official policy), changes in the educational program and language of instruction, conscription into the occupier’s army, changes in the demographic composition of the peninsula. The policy of colonization and militarization of Crimea in all its glory. I could go on forever, because the changes have affected absolutely every sphere of Crimean life.

For 10 years, Russia has been violating all existing rights and freedoms of free people with impunity and inventing new tools to combat dissent. However, resistance and resistance to the occupiers have not yet faded away despite a large-scale system of repression.

Viktor Ivanov, Judge, Deputy Chairman of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa, PhD in Law, Associate Professor

Undoubtedly, the War has affected the criminal justice system and criminal proceedings in Ukraine, and this is primarily due to the increase in the number of crimes against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security, for which the law provides for severe sanctions. These are, first of all, high treason; actions aimed at the violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or the seizure of state power; sabotage; espionage.

I would like to remind that on 24.02.2022, by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 64/2022, in connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, on the basis of the proposal of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of part one of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”, martial law was introduced throughout Ukraine from 05:30 a.m. on February 24, 2022 for a period of 30 days, which was subsequently repeatedly extended and is currently in force.

With the onset of the full-scale aggression of the terrorist state, the legislator introduced new corpus delicti of crimes under Art. 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Trespass against the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine), 110-2 (Financing of actions committed with the aim of violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or seizure of state power, change of the borders of the territory or state border of Ukraine), 111-1 (Collaboration), 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Aiding the aggressor state), 114-1 (Obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations), 114-2 (Unauthorized dissemination of information on the sending, movement of weapons, armaments and ammunition to Ukraine, movement, movement or deployment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other military formations formed in accordance with the laws of Ukraine, committed in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency).

Investigating judges of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa are considering numerous motions filed by SBU investigators and National Police investigators to impose preventive measures on persons suspected of committing these crimes.

Thus, according to Part 6 of Article 176 of the CPC of Ukraine, during the martial law, the majority of persons suspected or accused of committing crimes under Articles 109-114-2, 258-258-5, 260, 261, 437-442 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are subject to a preventive measure in the form of detention.

Pursuant to Article 183 of the CPC of Ukraine, during martial law, an investigating judge or court, when ruling on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, taking into account the grounds and circumstances provided for in Articles 177 and 178 of this Code, has the right not to set bail in criminal proceedings for a crime under Articles 109-114-2, 258-258-5, 260, 261, 437-442 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Considering the risks envisaged by Articles 176-178 of the CPC of Ukraine, the investigating authorities, in the vast majority of cases, apply to the court for a preventive measure in the form of detention, most of which are granted. If there is a reasonable suspicion of committing these crimes, such suspects are mostly chosen preventive measures in the form of detention without bail.

Based on the results of the review of indictments under these articles, the accused are sentenced to severe imprisonment within the sanction of the incriminated article.

Mykhailo Savchyn, Doctor of Law, Professor, Director of the Research Institute of Comparative Public Law and International Law of UzhNU, Advisor to the President of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2008-2010)

In times of war, the dilemma between freedom and security acquires new meaning and colors, because a nation-state that repels the aggressor is a space of security for its free citizens. By virtue of the republican tradition, every citizen has the right and duty to defend his or her country. Because Ukraine’s defeat in the course of the national revolution was too costly, this is the direct cause of the Holodomor of 1932/33.

For reasons of national defense in time of war, freedoms may be subject to certain restrictions. However, such restrictions must be proportionate and not encroach on the essential content of the right. An example of such protection is the landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which allowed restrictions on freedom without judicial control, which violated basic guarantees of constitutional freedoms.

At the same time, the state does not use the potential to mobilize resources within the framework of freedom of choice of profession and professional activity to increase Ukraine’s defense capability and transform the military-industrial complex to overcome economic stagnation and strengthen the military-industrial complex.

Natalia Gurkovska, Attorney at law, national expert of the Council of Europe

The right to liberty and security of person cannot be narrowed or restricted during martial law. Unfortunately, we can observe a completely different situation with the observance of this right. For example, in the summer of 2024, the provision on the automatic extension of detention was declared unconstitutional; systematic and unlawful detention and detention of people of the military recruitinng centres. These violations are followed by the inaction of law enforcement agencies in response to reports of kidnapping, murder, intentional bodily harm, etc., violations of the right to defense, violations of guarantees of the legal profession, and inaction of regional military courts of the Ministry of Defense. To summarize in one sentence: the war has unleashed the hands of villains and turned a blind eye to the fighters for justice.

Andriy Halay, Deputy Head of the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Doctor of Law, Professor

The war added new tasks without reducing the standard ones. Prisoners of war and new types of institutions with new standards of work; convicts captured by the Russian side and communication to confirm their identity, and in case of their return – to resolve additional issues; release to protect the homeland; evacuation/permanent preparedness/shelter/emergency power consumption and life support. And more, and more, and more new things that prisons have never faced in such a volume.

The war has made it difficult to work with the ordinary rights of ordinary prisoners. Where to release residents of the occupied territories; how to organize social ties if relatives are in Germany (or in Zakarpattia) as temporary refugees; how to organize a daily schedule of meals, sleep, work, and rest in conditions of constant anxiety and, in some regions, shelling?

Unfortunately, I did not see that the penitentiary system received certain compromise requirements for compliance with standards due to the difficulties of wartime. Heat, lighting, meals according to the schedule, taking people for treatment and issuing passports and organizing marriages of convicts. Fire extinguishers are not in the right order and the convicts’ eyes are scared – these are quotes from official instructions to eliminate human rights violations from the controlling expert structures.

But stop complaining.

Even during the war, we find opportunities to improve the conditions and lives of the convicts and even the staff. By involving prisoners in the work and prioritizing financial resources wisely, we find opportunities not only to repair their premises but also to create exemplary projects that receive good feedback from international organizations and prison structures in neighboring countries. We have numerous projects with international partners that allow us to ensure sustainability and introduce new approaches to prisoner resocialization. We do not turn a blind eye to problems and violations of rights – we coordinate interventions, corrections, and prosecutions through our own management tools.

Yuriy Kanikayev, Attorney at law

At the beginning of the invasion, the judicial system was expectedly frozen. Some judges fled abroad (it’s nice that these were isolated cases throughout the country), but many judges went to war. I know them personally and there are quite a few of them.

However, the system quickly recovered from the shock and we can say that after 2 months it started working almost the same way as before. It became commonplace to interrupt hearings so that the entire court with the participants in the case could go to the shelter. Almost all the courts where urgent criminal cases are heard have organized backup power so that the proceedings are not interrupted by power outages.

However, I can state that the most severe preventive measures have become much more frequent. The population of pre-trial detention centers has increased significantly, which I consider negative.

At the same time, I cannot say the same about sentencing, as the trends have remained the same, but I call for the humanization of pre-trial investigation.

For many years, I have been arguing for the possibility and urgent need to set bail when choosing house arrest, and for the introduction of the maximum preventive measure for economic and many corruption and official crimes (petty bribes, small drugs, embezzlement, road accidents, etc.) – house arrest with bail.

In addition, I consider the lack of real accountability of judges for actions and decisions that lead to the issuance of judgments against Ukraine to be a negative phenomenon.

It’s time to listen to the ECHR and not just distortedly “quote” its decisions when choosing detention without bail, but to use the ECHR case law as a source of law to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. I am confident that lawyers will always help judges in this regard, as it is difficult to find a case where a lawyer would not refer to certain ECHR judgments and ask the court to apply the relevant conclusions from it.

Volodymyr Trokhymchuk, Head of the Department of Penitentiary Inspections of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a situation where state bodies, including the penitentiary system, have transformed their work in completely new and extremely difficult conditions.

The organization of effective control over the activities of penitentiary bodies and institutions requires us to take into account the need to balance the fulfillment of Ukraine’s obligations to unconditionally ensure human rights in times of war, guarantee the safety of convicts and prison staff, etc. Qualitative fulfillment of these tasks requires consolidation of the work of all state bodies and the public. Saving lives and health is a top priority.

It is also necessary to take into account a new category of persons who are held in pre-trial detention centers and penitentiary institutions, in particular, prisoners of war. Their behavior and the specifics of working with them require new approaches and knowledge.

Denys Ponomarenko, Attorney at law

In my opinion, the war has had a negative impact on both the right to liberty and the attitude of criminal justice officials towards the right to liberty.

Firstly, it is necessary to pay attention to the legislative norms that were adopted during the war, and in my opinion, some of them are unconstitutional. As one of the most striking examples, these are the norms defined in Article 615 of the CPC of Ukraine, where the prosecutor is delegated the functions of the court and where restrictions on freedom can occur without judicial control.

Secondly, unfortunately, certain criminal proceedings are unreasonably qualified under Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, not in connection with the commission of such crimes, but for the purpose of obtaining artificial permits for NSDC and any decisions required from investigating judges.

Thirdly, the war has exacerbated and in no way solved the problem of providing courts with judges, which is catastrophically lacking to administer proper justice in compliance with procedural deadlines and guarantees set forth in the Law.

Vitaliy Nikulin, representative of the Ombudsman in places of detention

In the context of observance of the right to liberty, as well as the attitude to this right, from the point of view of the National Human Rights Institution, it should be noted that the war, like a tsunami, has affected the increased demand of society for the observance of human rights. This applies to the observance of the rights of everyone on the territory of Ukraine, including in places of detention, the rights of Ukrainian citizens abroad, as well as the observance of the rights of Russian prisoners of war. And all of them will be home sooner or later, because Ukraine is faithfully implementing the Geneva Conventions. But… A special request from society is aimed at ensuring the right to freedom in the context of the release of our defenders from Russian captivity! We must do everything to release each and every one of them, so that every mother, father, wife, husband, daughter, son hugs our defenders. We must ensure that the right to freedom is not declarative, but is ensured and realized by effective legal mechanisms.

Oleksandr Budigai, Attorney at law

Through the prism of my professional activity, I am unfortunately forced to state that since the full-scale military aggression of Russia against Ukraine, there has been a “deterioration” of the right to liberty and the attitude to the right to liberty by the criminal justice authorities in Ukraine. I can identify several reasons for this:

1. Lack of “ideological” law enforcement officers who prioritize professionalism, honor, dignity, legality and justice, rather than the “stick” system and the desire to get higher positions as soon as possible.

2. It is not uncommon for investigators and prosecutors to lack relevant practical experience, which makes them easy to manipulate by their superiors. The following example illustrates this point: “Investigators cry out, however, that they do not make decisions in criminal proceedings, since such issues are decided by procedural supervisors, and prosecutors, when addressing them, refer to the heads of prosecutor’soffices” (с). This creates a kind of “vicious” circle.

3. When it comes to choosing (extending) a preventive measure in the form of detention (both at the stage of pre-trial investigation and during the trial of criminal proceedings), the prosecution, instead of confirming the existence of risks with proper and admissible evidence, justifies its position solely by speculation, which sometimes borders on “nonsense and whimsy” (an example is given below):

“The risk envisaged by the CCP of Ukraine, i.e. to obstruct criminal proceedings in other ways, is confirmed by the fact that [the defendant], being at large, in order to evade criminal liability for the crime committed, in order not to be in isolation until the completion of the trial, may be in the combat zone, carry out combat orders, and thus have the opportunity not to appear in court. And the verification of the grounds for not appearing in court will require some time from the prosecution, which in turn will lead to an unreasonable delay in the trial”; (or)

“Given that [the defendant] has committed a criminal offense that creates a negative impression of disorder and impunity in the eyes of citizens and society as a whole, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in fighting crime, it is advisable to extend the measure of restraint in the form of detention without setting bail.”

4) Investigating judges and judges in most cases are not familiar with the materials of the received motions, or it seems that instead of exercising the powers of judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings, judges act jointly with the prosecution, which ultimately, after formal consideration of motions for the election (extension) of a preventive measure in the form of detention, clearly ends with the satisfaction of such motions, which in turn indicates a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, it should be noted that sometimes investigating judges (judges) “independently” collect evidence to justify the detention of a suspect or accused. By the way, the courts of appeal, in case of appealing against the decisions of the courts of first instance on the election (extension) of a preventive measure in the form of detention, act similarly.

Oleksandr Bohdanov, Attorney at law

Extremely negative. Amendments to the legislation, including those related to the adoption of Article 615 of the CCP of Ukraine, have led to abuses by investigators and prosecutors in terms of misappropriation of the powers of representatives of the judiciary. As a result, there have been cases where local courts have continued to exercise their powers in accordance with the established mode of operation since February 24, 2022, while measures to ensure criminal proceedings, permits to conduct searches and detain persons were taken solely on the basis of illegal decisions of the prosecutor. The evidence obtained will obviously be recognized as obviously inadmissible by national courts and will result in the prospect of proving the violated rights and freedoms of individuals directly to the ECHR.

Oleksandr Ruzhytskyi, Attorney at law

I think that the war has had a negative impact on the rule of law and freedoms in Ukraine. The war has significantly narrowed the tools for defending rights and freedoms. Restrictions on rallies/demonstrations (for obvious reasons), the lack of an alternative center of influence (effective opposition), and alternative media (there is a telethon) lead to the fact that the state apparatus (both law enforcement and judges) are more focused on the office of the president than on substantive or procedural law when making decisions. This is not the case in all cases, but in many that are under the conditional “control” of the state leadership. We can only hope that this is a temporary phenomenon that will end with the end of martial law in Ukraine.

Oleg Nesinov, Attorney at law

When we talk about the right to freedom, the right to movement, free choice of place of residence, personal integrity, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, labor, political freedoms, etc. come to mind. In general, it is the ability to freely choose a certain behavior, activity, and place of residence. The fewer restrictions there are, the better.

Obviously, war is an event that destroys or restricts all the usual rules of behavior, rights and freedoms. However, while the negative consequences of war, including the right to freedom resulting from the aggressor’s actions, are more or less clear to society (such as a ban on movement at night, the forced departure of millions of people abroad, requirements to comply with security measures, not holding regular elections, etc. ), then corruption, selectivity in mobilization, and sometimes the ordered nature of such actions (including against lawyers), disregard for the basic rights of citizens in the so-called “busification” (forcible and violent placing of detained men into buses of the military recruiting centres- D.Y.), the huge number of persons who have left the unit without permission, the ban on men of military age from traveling abroad, the seizure of churches by force, and the imitation of legality in the activities of the Military Commissions are signs and consequences of the state authorities’ disregard for the basic human right to freedom.

Now, more than ever, I believe that it is necessary for the state to take measures to ensure the right of citizens to receive reliable information, ensure the psychological health of the population and prevent psychological violence, since numerous bloggers and “experts” have learned to present information in a way that increases the number of strokes and heart attacks for the sake of likes and subscriptions.

The stories about the choice of European values and the European way of development look like hypocrisy, while the number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights is increasing and the unwillingness to put things in order.

Among the positive aspects (fortunately, there are some), I, as a lawyer, can name the possibility of remote participation in court proceedings via video conference, which greatly simplifies such activities.

Denys Keshkentiy, Attorney at law, International arbitrator

The War has had a significant impact on human rights, in particular the right to liberty and freedom of movement. After the beginning of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine in February 2022, the Government of Ukraine introduced a number of restrictive measures that, while aimed at strengthening national security, also affected the freedom of movement of citizens, especially men of military age. One of these measures was a ban on traveling abroad for men between the ages of 18 and 60, as well as complicating the procedure for obtaining consular services for those men already outside Ukraine.

The impact of the war on the right to liberty and freedom of movement was accompanied by a ban on free movement for men aged 18 to 60 who are obliged to remain in the country for possible military service. This decision was justified by the need to ensure the state’s defense capability in a critical period.

Despite the objective necessity, lawyers see it as a violation of the right to freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and international treaties.

For Ukrainians who find themselves abroad, access to consular services, such as renewing passports, obtaining certificates, and assistance in crisis situations, has become limited due to new requirements and bureaucratic obstacles.

In some cases, men of conscription age are denied the documents necessary for extended stays outside the country or to legalize their status abroad. This also constitutes a form of restriction of liberty, as it deprives them of full access to the legal protection they could receive from their state.

According to international law, every citizen has the right to receive consular support from their state, regardless of the circumstances.

Currently, some men of conscription age who left Ukraine before the outbreak of full-scale war or for justifiable reasons face difficulties in obtaining such services, which is a form of discrimination based on age and gender.

International agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, guarantee everyone the right to freedom of movement, to leave and return to any country freely. Also, the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations obliges states to provide their citizens with consular assistance. However, during martial law, international law allows states to partially restrict certain rights if it is justified by a pressing need. It is important that these restrictions do not violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination and are temporary.

It can be concluded that martial law in Ukraine has led to significant restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement and consular assistance for men of military age, leading to discussions about the admissibility of such measures and their proportionality. It is important to strike a balance between national security requirements and human rights protection, taking into account both domestic legislation and Ukraine’s international obligations.

Dmytro Slobodianiuk, Attorney at law, Doctor of Philosophy in Law

The beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has significantly changed everyone’s life, and definitely not for the better. The state must respond to such challenges appropriately, ensuring a balance of interests between human rights and freedoms and issues of national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

It is unfortunate, but it can already be stated that in more than two and a half years, no relevant mechanisms have been formed to ensure guarantees of the right to freedom. Individual cases of attempts at legislative changes in this area remain largely on paper and do not actually work. More glaring problems remain unresolved.

Cases of abuse by law enforcement officials and military officers from the military recruting centres do not decrease. Illegal detentions and detention of persons against their will are becoming commonplace.

The tools that should be in place cannot be used effectively.

Lawyers often do not have the opportunity to communicate with the detainee even by phone, let alone ensure unimpeded access to him or her.

The judicial practice formed during this period is also not on the side of the defense counsel, since it is almost impossible to achieve the restoration of the right to liberty and most often this is due to the impossibility of collecting evidence to confirm the very fact of such detention. Everyone seems to understand everything, but “the authorities throw up their hands.”

There are few examples of perpetrators being brought to justice for unlawful detention and detention against their will compared to the facts of such abuses.

Such trends undermine not only the foundations of the rule of law in Ukraine, but also lead to a complete lack of faith in the principles of legality and independence of the judiciary.

The level of distrust in public authorities is growing, and the high-profile corruption scandals of recent years make any attempts by Ukraine to be a full-fledged international partner impossible, as this situation significantly affects international ratings and the overall image of the state in the international arena.

Andriy Mazur, Attorney at law, Officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Currently, my perception of such a category as freedom and the right to freedom is probably somewhat deformed given my current profession and occupation. Being in the Armed Forces of Ukraine since February 2022, I actually witnessed how at some point we turned the wrong way.

It so happened that the category of people who defend and fight for the right to freedom of the rest of society, virtually indefinitely, received the greatest restrictions on their rights, including freedom. Some may argue that the state can restrict rights and freedoms, especially during martial law, especially for such a category as the military.

I agree, but does the absence of military service terms comply with the principles of quality and legal certainty of the law?

On the other hand, there are not isolated cases of violations of the right to liberty of military personnel by their commanders, since the latter have very limited means of legitimate influence on the personnel. On the other hand, in practice, the armed forces have no real mechanisms for bringing commanders to justice.

Dmytro Yagunov, Attorney at law, Doctor of Political Science, Associate Professor, MSSc in Criminal Justice

As of 06.11.2024, 38992 people were held in penitentiary institutions in Ukraine (15549 people in pre-trial detention centers and penitentiaries, 22550 people in correctional colonies, 50 people in educational colonies, and 843 people in correctional centers). The decline in the prison population was rightfully a source of pride for the Ukrainian authorities before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Indeed, few countries can boast of such a decline in the number of prisoners, although there are nuances.

The first of them is Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. Accordingly, the total number of Ukrainian prisoners went down sharply, precisely after deducting the prison population of the regions that traditionally had the largest prison population compared to other regions.

Unfortunately, however, there are other nuances that are rather disappointing for Ukrainian penitentiary policy, and they are related to the relative figures of the prison population.

Speaking about the population of Ukraine, it is worth mentioning that in 2020, the State Statistics Service gave a figure of 41.9 million people.

According to the IMF, in 2021, Ukraine’s population was 41 million people. In 2022, it dropped to 35 million people, and in 2023 – to 33.2 million people.

According to the Institute of Demography and Social Studies, as of January 1, 2023, the population of Ukraine was 28-34 million.

According to the UNHCR, as of August 19, 2024, 6.8 million refugees from Ukraine were registered as a result of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.

When critically assessing absolute figures, one should take into account the number of refugees, “evaders” and corruption in the expert medical commissions, and not always strong borders (if there are hundreds of people trying to cross the border, it means that there is demand and, accordingly, opportunities).

Accordingly, all this has created conditions for an even greater outflow of the Ukrainian population, and therefore we have every reason to take the Ukrainian population figure of approximately 28 million people as a basis.

Therefore, the incarceration rate as of September 2024 is more than likely to be 144 prisoners per 100 thousand people.

As a result, there is a very dangerous tendency for Ukrainian justice to move in a punitive direction. The forced derogation from Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights could not have passed without social consequences for the Ukrainian prison system and national prison policy.

However, more importantly, the forced derogation from Article 5 of the Convention could not have passed without psychological consequences for judges, investigators and prosecutors.

Unfortunately, the war continues. It takes lives of Ukrainians. Therefore, judges and prosecutors cannot stand aside and isolate themselves in their efforts to punish Ukrainians as much as possible through imprisonment.