On December 11, 2025, Draft Law of Ukraine No. 14292 “On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and Other Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding International Cooperation During Criminal Proceedings” was registered, submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (hereinafter—the draft law). Whether this is a good thing or not—let’s take a closer look.

Purpose of the Draft Law and Analysis of Its Main Provisions

According to the explanatory note, the purpose of this draft law is to improve existing mechanisms for international cooperation in criminal matters and to fulfill certain international obligations. In my opinion, this should have been done earlier, since national legislation, in particular, lacks a definition of the term “international wanted person.” This affects not only the effectiveness of international cooperation for the purpose of extradition proceedings but also the rights of suspects and defendants who are the subject of an international search.

Therefore, in accordance with this draft law, Part 2 of Article 281 (Search for a Suspect) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter—the CPC of Ukraine) is amended to define the moment when an international search begins.

 Furthermore, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies currently lack the ability to use electronic communications when sending requests for legal assistance and the extradition of offenders. If this draft law is enacted, such a capability will be established, and law enforcement agencies will be able to send requests electronically to their counterparts in foreign countries when provided for by an international treaty or agreement between the authorized (central) authorities of the requesting and requested parties.

Given current practice, such changes in legislation will help reduce the time spent on international cooperation. Currently, requests from law enforcement agencies—particularly those for legal assistance—are processed only if a paper original is available, a process that takes months and, in some cases, even years.

In addition, this draft law provides for:

• ensuring adequate protection of information regarding international cooperation; improving the efficiency of resolving issues related to obtaining evidence abroad, if such obtaining requires court authorization; and avoiding delays in proceedings concerning the confiscation of assets seized abroad;

• creating conditions for Ukraine to provide the broadest possible cooperation on matters of mutual legal assistance based on the principle of reciprocity in criminal cases by eliminating the requirement of dual criminality in cases where the requested assistance does not involve procedural actions requiring special authorization;

• establishing a legal basis for cooperation with the EU Public Prosecutor’s Office and, for this purpose, extending the concept of “requesting party” beyond a foreign state to include an organ or institution of an international organization authorized to conduct criminal proceedings;
• improving the mechanism for providing mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and resolving issues of extradition and the transfer of convicted persons, taking into account the practice of applying the provisions of relevant international treaties;
• improving the regulatory framework for certain procedural issues related to the surrender of persons (extradition), as well as the procedure for taking over criminal proceedings;
• improving the procedures for resolving issues regarding the transfer of convicted persons and the enforcement of foreign court judgments in Ukraine and Ukrainian court judgments abroad;
• ensuring legal certainty in the implementation of Ukraine’s international treaties on the transfer of convicted persons, which guarantee the convicted person the opportunity to resolve certain issues related to the enforcement of a sentence, both in the sentencing state and in the state of enforcement, in particular, by providing the opportunity to file a cassation appeal against decisions when it is necessary to remedy material violations of criminal law and the incorrect application of Ukraine’s criminal law committed by courts of first and appellate instance during the consideration of motions by the Ministryto bring the sentences of foreign courts into compliance with Ukrainian law;
• closing a loophole and regulating the procedure for considering a request from a foreign state regarding the distribution or return of confiscated property, as well as establishing the legal grounds for a Ukrainian court to submit such a request to the competent authority of a foreign state, etc.

At the same time, in my opinion, one cannot agree with the following amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine proposed by this draft law.

Currently, Part 1 of Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine reads as follows:

1. If, during a pretrial investigation, the whereabouts of a suspect are unknown, or if the suspect has left the country and/or is located in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine or outside Ukraine and fails to appear without valid reasons when summoned by an investigator or or the prosecutor—provided the suspect has been duly notified of such a summons—the investigator or prosecutor shall issue a warrant for the arrest of such a suspect.

Before issuing a warrant for the suspect’s arrest, the investigator or prosecutor is required to take measures to determine the suspect’s whereabouts.

Similarly, this draft law proposes amending Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as follows:

1. If, during the pretrial investigation, the suspect’s whereabouts are unknown or the suspect has left the country and/or is in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and fails to appear without valid reasons in response to a summons by an investigator or prosecutor, provided that the suspect was duly notified of such a summons, the investigator or prosecutor shall issue a search warrant for such a suspect. If there are sufficient grounds to believe that such a person has left and/or is outside Ukraine, the investigator or prosecutor shall issue an international search warrant for such a suspect.”

Before issuing a wanted notice or an international wanted notice for a suspect, the investigator or prosecutor is required to take measures to determine the suspect’s whereabouts.

Of course, it is positive that with the adoption of this law, the specific moment when an international search begins will be defined. That is, Part 2 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine will clearly state: “A person is considered to be placed on a wanted list, including an international one, from the moment the ruling is issued.”

However, it remains unclear to me personally what exactly the criteria should be for determining sufficient grounds to believe that a suspect or defendant has left and/or is outside Ukraine.

Therefore, in my opinion, the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine should include a note to this article specifying the sufficient grounds for concluding that a suspect or defendant, whose whereabouts are unknown to the investigation, has left and/or is outside Ukraine.

For example, such grounds could include, in particular, information from the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding a specific individual’s crossing of Ukraine’s state border. Furthermore, the note must clearly state that a report from an operative unit employee or any other law enforcement agency cannot serve as grounds for concluding that such a person has left the country and/or is outside Ukraine.

This is important because even if such changes are made to the law, investigators may abuse them and independently “determine” grounds for concluding, in particular, that a suspect is outside Ukraine.

As a result of such abuses by investigators, the rights of a suspect or defendant who is placed on an international wanted list may be violated. Here’s why.

In accordance with the provisions of Part 6 of Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, an investigating judge or a court considers a motion to impose a preventive measure in the form of pretrial detention and may impose such a preventive measure in the absence of the suspect, or accused only if the prosecutor proves the existence of the grounds provided for in Article 177 of this Code, as well as the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect, the accused has left and/or is located in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, the territory of a state recognized by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as an aggressor state, and/or has been placed on an international wanted list.  In other words, if this bill is adopted, it will be sufficient for the investigator to obtain a report from an “operative” containing information that, according to operational data, the suspect has illegally crossed the state border of Ukraine and is currently located, for example, in the Republic of Poland.

Consequently, the investigator will have grounds to place such a person on an international wanted list: all the investigator needs to do is issue a ruling—and that’s it; the person is “on the international wanted list.” Next, the investigator will apply to the court to impose a pretrial measure in the form of pretrial detention on this person, and the investigating judge will be able to order such a pretrial measure in the absence of the suspect, who, quite possibly, is not actually outside Ukraine at that time.

The fact is that, at present, investigators face certain difficulties when selecting pretrial detention as a preventive measure for suspects or defendants who are allegedly subject to an international arrest warrant. This is due to the fact that the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, in its letter “On Certain Issues Regarding the Application of Precautionary Measures During Pretrial Investigation and Court Proceedings in Accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine” dated April 4, 2013, No. 511–550/0/4–13, noted that the burden of proving that a suspect or defendant is on an international wanted list rests with the investigator or prosecutor who filed the motion to apply a preventive measure, and must be confirmed by relevant information (a certificate, an extract from the Interpol database, etc.).

In other words, there are currently at least certain requirements for investigators to prove that a suspect, in particular, is on an international wanted list.

Taking into account the position expressed above regarding the draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and Other Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning International Cooperation During Criminal Proceedings” dated February 11, 2025 No. 14292, I believe that amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the area of international cooperation during criminal proceedings are extremely necessary both for the law enforcement system and for our country as a whole; however, they require further refinement, taking into account, in particular, the shortcomings mentioned above.