The war has significantly changed law enforcement practices in Ukraine, particularly in the field of criminal law and procedure. Challenges related to war crimes, national security, collaborationism, and wartime-specific criminal offenses require the adaptation of the judicial system. The Supreme Court of Ukraine plays a key role in ensuring the uniformity of judicial practice and shaping new approaches to law enforcement.

Russia’s aggression has led to numerous war crimes that require thorough investigation. In particular, Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute has allowed it to align its legislation with international standards and more clearly define crimes of aggression. Ukrainian law has expanded the concept of collaborationism, including cooperation with the occupying authorities, support for the aggressor, and assistance to illegal armed groups. There is a need for clear differentiation of such actions, especially concerning individuals who do not hold military or political status but support aggression economically or informationally.

Under wartime conditions, the Ukrainian parliament has introduced aggravating circumstances for property crimes committed during martial law. This has sparked discussions about the fairness of punishments, especially in cases of petty theft. In response to criticism, the threshold for criminal liability was raised, helping to avoid excessive criminal prosecution for minor offenses.

Martial law has also led to changes in criminal procedure, particularly simplifying urgent investigative actions such as searches. Unfortunately, this has resulted in abuses by law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court emphasizes the need to uphold human rights, especially when it comes to searches conducted without judicial authorization.

During the war, Ukraine has allowed trials in absentia. This has facilitated the prosecution of war criminals more efficiently; however, it has also sparked debates about the international legitimacy of such measures, particularly in cases involving prisoners of war.

Ukrainian legal experts note that the Supreme Court ensures the uniform application of the law and aligns national legislation with international standards. In particular, rulings on the qualification of aggression and war crimes are essential for harmonizing judicial practice at the international level. At the same time, judicial practice is evolving: previously established legal positions are being adjusted to meet new wartime challenges. Similar changes are observed not only in Ukraine but also in international courts.

In recent years, Ukraine has actively cooperated with international judicial institutions, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This cooperation ensures that Supreme Court rulings comply with international legal standards and helps avoid legal conflicts.

The system of pre-trial investigations in Ukraine has also undergone significant transformations. At the beginning of the war, when the country was plunged into chaos due to Russia’s military aggression, law enforcement agencies operated under extreme conditions, and many processes were conducted as openly as possible. However, as the situation stabilized and the Russian offensive was repelled, investigations began to take on new characteristics, with some shifting towards the principle of achieving results “at any cost.” This has led to concerns among legal experts about the risk of unjust prosecutions.

A particularly alarming trend is that law enforcement officers often operate under the principle of “results at any cost,” ignoring both procedural norms and potential consequences for the economy and businesses. Mass arrests, asset freezes, and high-profile searches accompanied by media coverage not only create public outrage but also damage companies’ reputations and undermine trust in the judicial system. In some cases, criminal cases are initiated based on questionable evidence, such as sensational social media posts or superficial financial analyses, which can be used as instruments of pressure.

Another dangerous trend in today’s criminal practice is the spread of operational information in the media and social networks. This not only violates the presumption of innocence but can also be used to manipulate public opinion and ruin reputations. Reports about searches, asset seizures, and even private photographs of suspects often appear on Telegram channels or Facebook before they are officially announced. This creates an environment for misinformation, distortion of facts, and the formation of negative public opinion before a court decision is made.

Conclusions

The war has significantly impacted criminal law and procedure in Ukraine, forcing the judicial system to rapidly adapt to new challenges. Special mechanisms have been introduced for investigating war crimes and combating collaborationism, and liability for crimes committed under martial law has been increased. At the same time, the simplification of procedural norms has led to abuses, raising concerns about justice and human rights protection.

The pre-trial investigation system has also undergone transformations, but certain trends—such as media pressure and violations of the presumption of innocence—are alarming. It is crucial that, even under wartime conditions, criminal justice remains a tool of justice rather than a means of political or economic pressure.

Ukraine continues to adapt its legislation to international standards and actively cooperates with international judicial institutions. The future development of criminal law and procedure will depend on maintaining a balance between effective law enforcement and protecting human rights, which remains a key challenge for the country’s legal system during the war.