Publication date: 19.05.2025
Lawyer. Expert in criminal law. Specializes in corruption crimes, bribery, military activities, crimes in the financial sector and crimes against the foundations of national security. Support in the European Court of Human Rights and international wanted issues.
Initial Situation
In November 2024, a client contacted the attorney while being held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of committing a criminal offense. A senior investigator of the Security Service of Ukraine submitted a motion to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv to extend the preventive measure in the form of detention, citing risks of flight, influence on witnesses, and obstruction of the investigation.
The court of first instance granted the prosecution's motion, significantly restricting the client's personal freedom and denying the opportunity to fully exercise the right to defense. Despite the lack of new circumstances justifying continued detention, the court relied solely on general assumptions made by the prosecution. Such an approach contradicts the principle of presumption of innocence and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which repeatedly emphasizes that deprivation of liberty must be a last resort and based on actual risks, not mere suspicions. As a result, the attorney initiated an appeal and began preparing the legal position for the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Defense Actions
Considering the violation of the principle of proportionality and the possibility of applying alternative measures, the attorney immediately prepared an appeal against the Shevchenkivskyi court's ruling to the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
The legal strategy was focused on the following key arguments:
- Lack of substantiated risks that would justify detention (there was no proven risk of witness tampering, evidence destruction, or flight).
- Availability of alternative preventive measures such as bail, which ensures compliance with procedural duties while avoiding excessive interference with the suspect’s personal life.
- Disproportionate measure — detention without valid justification is a direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, the European Convention on Human Rights, and ECHR jurisprudence.
- Positive character references, permanent residence, employment, and family ties, which exclude the risk of flight.
Court Hearing
At the hearing of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, the parties presented their positions. The defense representative outlined clear legal and factual arguments supported by Supreme Court practice and ECHR rulings.
Special emphasis was placed on the fact that detention should not be used as a tool of pressure on the suspect, but only when no effective alternative exists.
This case once again confirms that a strategic legal position, timely appeals, and well-prepared arguments can turn the case in favor of the client, even after a negative first-instance court decision.
Result
The appellate court considered the defense's arguments and granted the appeal. The court:
✅ Canceled the Shevchenkivskyi District Court’s ruling extending detention.
✅ Changed the preventive measure to bail with a clearly defined amount.
✅ The client was released and gained the opportunity to participate in their defense without unreasonable restrictions.
This case demonstrates the importance of timely response to violations of a suspect's rights in criminal proceedings. Changing the preventive measure is not only a matter of liberty but also of effective defense, maintaining reputation, and preserving human dignity.
📌 If you or your loved ones are facing an unfair preventive measure — seek qualified legal assistance. The law provides legal and effective ways to defend yourself.
