There hasn’t been any silence in the media for a long time, but the main topics of concern for Ukrainians remain the same: the war, sanctions, and the TCC. Is it possible to hold elections during a war? Are sanctions imposed by the current president on the former president subject to revocation? When will a member of the Security Service of Ukraine cease to be considered a criminal?

Attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk, a partner and spokesperson for the Barristers law firm, analyzed the legal nuances of these current issues for UA.NEWS, explaining where the line lies between the law, politics, and national security.

— If international institutions or individual politicians begin to oppose sanctions against Ukrainians, could this realistically limit Zelenskyy’s actions?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: In this case, President Zelenskyy is merely implementing the decisions made by the National Security and Defense Council. There is a specific procedure for adopting and applying sanctions, so it is incorrect to speak of the president’s actions in this instance. However, take the example of how we recently received information that the U.S. State Department characterized the case involving People’s Deputy Shevchenko as political pressure. 

Yes, this could prompt the NSDC, within the framework of the current procedure, to review the sanctions that have been imposed, given that there may be no grounds for them or that the original reasons for their imposition may no longer exist.  

— Where is the line between national security and human rights?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: It’s a very fine line, especially now, in the context of war. Human rights must still be the foundation, because they are inviolable. For example, when sanctions are imposed and the rights of children are overlooked. And children, as a result of restrictions imposed on an adult relative, are left without schooling, without medical care, and without an education. Yes, national security is important. However, when imposing sanctions, the National Security and Defense Council must also take into account that it may violate not only human rights but also the rights of children. 

— Is there a risk that the sanctions mechanism could become a tool for political reprisals?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: It’s hard for me to give a definitive answer to this question, but I can say for certain that there are several cases—in particular, for example, the case of Svitlana Kryukova—where sanctions were imposed completely without justification. That is, I am familiar with the grounds for imposing sanctions, and I can say with certainty that in this case, those grounds do not exist. Accordingly, I would not call such decisions political reprisals, but rather emotional decisions made by the National Security and Defense Council.  For example, regarding Svitlana Kryukova, we are currently preparing an appeal to the National Security and Defense Council to lift the sanctions, since we have learned all the facts and the root cause. Not only was the procedure violated, but there are no grounds for sanctions at all. Therefore, the emotional element must be removed. Even if someone doesn’t like another person—that doesn’t mean sanctions should be imposed on them!

— What are the key principles that should guide the selection of judges?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: When we select a future judge, we must understand that, at this moment, there are no questions regarding their conduct—whether they are a lawyer, an arbitration administrator, or simply a citizen of Ukraine. In other words, the candidate is not currently subject to any form of liability. Second: the absence of established ties to the Russian Federation. Third: professional suitability. Based on these three categories, we don’t even need to discuss financial status or similar matters. 

And I would also mention a fourth category: the candidate’s apolitical stance. For me, this is also very important when selecting future judges.

— How can we ensure a balance—so that there are no random people in the judiciary, but also so that it doesn’t turn into a “special-interest club”?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Essentially, what I said in my previous answer: apolitical stance, no ties to the Russian Federation, professional competence, and the absence of any pending proceedings—criminal, administrative, or disciplinary. The combination of these qualities will mean that the person is not a random choice; they are a specialist, not just a random contestant. It’s important to understand that the judiciary is a specific segment of society, and there simply aren’t any random people there. That’s because the quantity and quality of professional knowledge a candidate must demonstrate today are very high. Therefore, there simply aren’t any random people there. 

— If Poroshenko wins the case regarding sanctions, what will be the consequences for Ukrainian law and the political system?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: There will be no consequences, since this is just a single case; we understand that we do not have a system of case law. But in practice, for understanding the sanctions compliance procedure, this will be of great significance, because we’ll be studying the arguments on the basis of which the court will decide to overturn the presidential decree—for example, with regard to Petro Poroshenko. We’ll understand how these positions can be applied to our own cases. 

— As a lawyer and a citizen, tell us: under what conditions can presidential, parliamentary, and local elections be held today? 

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Elections are necessary today; they must be held, but only under conditions that ensure the safety of citizens—safety in the air and on the ground. This means safe cities where the civilian population resides and where the front line is frozen. Safety in the air and on the ground must be guaranteed by our partners. It is absolutely essential to hold elections, at least for local councils, since representatives of Shariy’s party, the Opposition Platform—For Life, and others still remain there. 

— If tomorrow Zelenskyy says, “That’s it, we’re holding elections”—what needs to be taken into account so that this isn’t deemed illegal?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: At the legislative level, we need to adopt the appropriate regulatory framework, which the Central Election Commission will then implement. In other words, everything must be clearly defined and regulated, based on the ceasefire agreement.  Then we need to address at the legislative level the question of why we are holding elections while martial law is in effect. In other words, lifting certain restrictions at the constitutional and legislative levels is crucial. 

Overall, holding elections under these circumstances is possible. Parliament must work effectively on this. It may be necessary to lift martial law for a certain period of time or for the duration of the elections. We need to figure out the right way to do this. But a separate regulatory document regarding the elections must definitely be adopted by Parliament.  

— Do you plan to enter national politics to change the rules of the game from within?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: For me, politics is already happening today; I’ve been involved in politics for the past 15 years—both at the municipal and national levels—in addition to my work as a lawyer. Let’s think in realistic terms rather than talk about the future. It’s illusory.  

I’m interested in the city. I wouldn’t dare run for parliament, but I could become a city council member. Especially since today I have an entire district behind me—the whole of Obolon—so obviously I’d run. Today, as a spokesperson for the national association, I’d be well-suited for the position of secretary of the Kyiv City Council. 

— About Mariana Bezuhla, Asperger’s syndrome, and access to state secrets. Is this even legal?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: No, it’s not normal, and I think criminal proceedings should be initiated against Mariana. To date, we have already filed a criminal case against Bezuhla regarding her interference in the activities of a public official, namely People’s Deputy Oleksandr Fedienko. This case is under investigation, and it’s important to note that new charges can and should be added if she disclosed this secret or other information. Those who granted Mariana access to classified documents should also face criminal liability. This poses a risk of information leaks, which must also be taken into account. 

— Are there any medical or psychological restrictions for members of parliament and officials who work with classified materials?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Unfortunately, there are no psychological health screenings at all for elected officials who become members of parliament. I once advocated for the psychophysiological data of lawmakers to serve as the basis for psychiatric evaluations, so that after being examined by a psychiatrist, they could take their seats in parliament.  

For example, attorneys and lawyers undergo a psychiatric evaluation and receive Form 101-US when they apply to the High Council of Justice or the High Qualification Commission of Judges. Why don’t members of parliament do the same? There is no such requirement for classified documents either. A lawmaker receives authorization and goes to work. For documents classified as “top secret,” the procedure may include a background check on the lawmaker if, for example, the security service requests such a document. However, even in this case, it is possible but not mandatory.  

— If a military servicemember deserted his unit without authorization and went into hiding for several years—will there be punishment after the war ends?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: This is a criminal offense investigated by the State Bureau of Investigation’s relevant regional office. There is a criminal case, and a formal charge will be filed as soon as the individual is detained. Today, there are grounds to suggest that exemption from criminal liability may be granted due to changes in the situation and other reasons. However, each individual case involving such an offense must be considered separately.  

— Can a court take circumstances into account when sentencing for a crime against state security?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Of course it can, and it is clear that these are different grounds for, for example, exempting a person from criminal liability. However, the fact of a criminal offense merely indicates that we can discuss grounds for exemption, but not for exoneration—these are different categories! Some grounds are rehabilitative (when a person is exempted from criminal liability), while others are not—but the very fact of committing an unauthorized absence from military service, that is, a criminal offense, does not disappear.  If the court determines that desertion in a specific case does not constitute a criminal offense, an acquittal may be issued.

— Is there a difference in liability between those who left the front lines during combat and those who simply failed to report back after leave?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: There is no difference in terms of legal classification—it is all considered desertion. Therefore, the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) is investigating this, as the competent authority responsible for this category of crimes under criminal procedural law. 

— “Offices” that scam Russians, and society often considers this a “good cause.” From a legal standpoint, where is the line between legal activity and a crime?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Of course, the cause is a good one, but there are several elements of a criminal offense here. This could involve fraud, money laundering of illegally obtained funds, and terrorist financing. It’s important to understand that, in any case, taking possession of a person’s funds without the intention of providing a service or misleading them constitutes a criminal offense committed on the territory of our country. Given that it is unknown how the beneficiaries and the perpetrators of this offense dispose of the funds received, I would not speak of good intentions or “Robin Hood-like behavior” in this context.  

— What liability might TCC employees face for exceeding their authority?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: The legislation regarding TCC employees has changed repeatedly. There has been discussion of liability for abuse of power or exceeding official authority, causing bodily harm, and forging documents—there was even a bill that slightly amended the penalties for certain actions, increasing them to up to eight years of imprisonment for TCC representatives.

But I wouldn’t distinguish TCC officials from other public officials in general. They are public officials and should be held to the same standards of accountability as other public officials; any violation of human rights or abuse of power can result in criminal liability for them.

— Does the state have the right to remobilize people who have already returned from service and are in the reserves?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: There are clear legal grounds that prohibit the re-mobilization of people discharged from service. For example, if you have lost a brother or a family member who died on the front lines and you become, for instance, the sole breadwinner of the family. Such grounds are clearly spelled out in the law. However, there are sometimes glitches in internal documentation, a lack of coordination between the General Staff and certain Territorial Mobilization Centers, or abuses by regional military registration and enlistment offices. For example, a certain military registration and enlistment office in Tyachiv may not be aware of what is happening at the one in Obolon—there is no mutual exchange of information, and they try to mobilize the person. Such situations do occur.