As of 2024, judgments had been handed down in the cases of 78,991 individuals, of whom only 782 were acquitted—that is, just 0.99%.

As someone who has practiced in the criminal justice system for over 16 years, including more than 13 years as a defense attorney (with three acquittals to my credit), it appears that the reasons for these disheartening statistics may lie in a combination of the following circumstances.

1. The absence of jury trials. Following the full-scale invasion, the legislature introduced unconstitutional amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, pursuant to which jury trials are not applied in criminal cases during the period of martial law (while they continue to be applied in civil cases). Juries traditionally are more likely to hand down acquittals in cases where “professional” judges, for various reasons, are reluctant to “strain relations” with the prosecution.

2. Staffing crisis in the courts. The low number of judges and court staff leads to a significant workload, resulting in fewer cases being heard.

3. Improving the quality of the judiciary. The reform of the judicial system—in particular, the inclusion of lawyers and academics in the judiciary (as one way to combat traditional Soviet approaches to the judicial process)—is proceeding slowly. Such renewal was fully implemented only in the Supreme Court in 2016–2017 (and the need for a new competitive selection process has already arisen). The High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges, and the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Judges currently do not have their own representatives, who would have been appointed by a convention of attorneys—since no such convention has been held (while academics, prosecutors, and judges do hold relevant conferences and conventions). For example, on February 21, 2025—one of the days the exam was held as part of the competitive selection process for general appellate courts specializing in criminal cases—candidates were asked to solve two problems, for which the correct answers would be: overturning an acquittal and amending the ruling that closed the criminal proceedings due to reconciliation—from one that does not impose court costs to one that does impose court costs.

4. Disguising potential acquittals as procedural compromises (dismissal on other grounds—such as the statute of limitations or violations of pretrial investigation deadlines, through reconciliation, genuine repentance, a change in circumstances, or agreements under Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, etc.).

5. Violation or inadequacy of existing guarantees for the practice of law. Wiretapping and surveillance of attorneys, searches of attorneys’ offices, use of force, and the lack of exemption from mobilization during the trial (unlike investigators, prosecutors, and judges), which fails to ensure compliance with the principle of the continuity of defense throughout the entire proceedings.

6. The inability for private experts to conduct forensic examinations. An overly broad classification of expert examinations as “forensic” (as a result, private experts are currently prohibited from conducting, for example, handwriting analysis and even linguistic examinations).

7. Lack of institutional independence for judges and court experts.