1
0
Independence of judges of any democratic state is one of the pillars of the sustainable development and protection of human rights. Interference in the work of the judiciary is defined as a crime in the Article 376 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Pursuant to the first paragraph of the Article 376, interference in any form with the activities of a judge with the aim of obstructing the performance of his/her official duties or obtaining an unjust decision shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand to four thousand tax-free minimum incomes, or correctional labour for up to two years, or probationary supervision for up to three years.
Pursuant to the second paragraph of the Article 376, the same actions, if they prevented the prevention of a criminal offence or detention of the person who committed it, or were committed by a person using his/her official position shall be punishable by deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or probationary supervision for a term of up to five years, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
In the light of the numerous complaints of Ukrainian judges on interference in their independence, it is very surprising that in 2019 there were 168 crimes registered with no criminal proceedings with the concrete suspects.
In 2020, there were only 143 crimes with 2 suspects.
In 2021, there were only 122 crimes with no suspects.
In 2022, there were only 64 crimes with 2 suspects.
In 2023, there were only 102 crimes with no suspects.
Finally, in 2024, there were only 98 crimes with 2 suspects.
| Interference in the work of the judiciary (Article 376 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) | Crimes | Criminal proceedings with suspects |
| 2019 | 168 | 0 |
| 2020 | 143 | 2 |
| 2021 | 122 | 0 |
| 2022 | 64 | 2 |
| 2023 | 102 | 2 |
| 2024 | 98 | 0 |
To sum up, for the last six years, 697 actions were declared as crimes of interference in the work of the judiciary. However, only 6 criminal proceedings of the last six years had concrete suspects.
The answer could lie in two areas.
First, it can be concerned with the absence of the proper investigations by the corresponding LEAs.
Second, it could be concerned with the false evaluation of the conflict situations by the judges who, as usual, initiate such criminal proceedings.
These crimes are not latent as compared to other crimes. Therefore, the key may lie in proper evaluation of situation by judges to avoid stigmatising with the label of ‘crime’ the actions which could be of a conflict nature during the court proceeding or concerned with sometimes emotional expression of thoughts by parties during the trial.
Average Rating