Reform of the law enforcement system, along with improvements to the judiciary in our country, has long since entered a permanent phase. As is well known, as early as September of last year, lawmakers set a course for a large-scale overhaul of the prosecutor’s office: The Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Priority Measures for the Reform of the Prosecutor’s Office” provided for the re-certification of prosecutorial personnel, a reduction in the maximum number of prosecutors by one-third (from 15,000 to 10,000), changes to the structure of the institution, and the temporary transfer of all personnel and disciplinary functions effectively into a single set of hands—under the authority of the Prosecutor General. At the same time, back in the summer of 2019, the head of state established the Commission on Legal Reform, which was tasked, in particular, with working in two areas: the development of criminal law and the reform of the criminal justice system.

Participants in the LHS Discussion Hub shared their assessments of the effectiveness of criminal justice reform today. Representatives of the legal community—attorneys and prosecutors—gathered for a roundtable discussion on pressing issues.

Setting the tone for the discussion, Alexey Shevchuk, a partner at Barristers LLP, suggested that the experts focus on two questions: What needs to be changed in the work of law enforcement agencies, and how can criminal legislation be amended? According to the moderator, such professional discussions are always interesting and important, but they will only yield practical value if the opinions of the legal community are heard by legislators and representatives of pre-trial investigation agencies themselves. As noted, the results of such a discussion should be translated into concrete proposals for improvement.

Mr. Shevchuk acknowledges that government officials lack a concrete strategy for reforming the criminal justice system, drawing attention to the issue of ensuring guarantees for the practice of law, which remains as relevant as ever.

“The problem of violations of lawyers’ rights is indeed quite acute today,” echoes moderator Taras Poshyvanyuk. In addition, he draws attention to another problematic issue—the lack of effective mechanisms for holding investigators and prosecutors accountable. Every participant in criminal proceedings must approach the exercise of their powers responsibly, the attorney emphasizes.

In his assessment of the ongoing criminal justice reform, Mr. Poshyvanyuk is quite reserved. “So far, these are just empty words; it all boils down to a personnel shake-up within the prosecutor’s office,” the speaker shares his observations, adding that for some reason the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has been excluded from this process, even though there are many questions today regarding the work of its representatives. He cited the abolition of the military prosecutor’s office as perhaps the only positive change in the announced reform.

How is the personnel overhaul of the prosecutor’s office taking place? Oleksandr Zhyla, a prosecutor with the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office, shared his “insider’s” perspective with participants at the LHS Discussion Hub. He explained that the first stage of the recertification process is already in its final stretch: the anonymous testing of regional-level prosecutor’s office staff is nearing completion. Reform is a positive experience, the speaker acknowledged, but he believes this process should not be ongoing, nor should it be carried out at a forced pace.

If the reform campaign is limited solely to personnel matters, it will not yield tangible results. Moreover, according to Mr. Zhila, due to the current re-certification process, prosecutors are “taken out of the professional loop” for an extended period (some for several weeks, others for as long as a month). “And this is already a threat to national security,” he states, explaining: while a prosecutor is undergoing the procedure to confirm his or her professional competence and integrity, he or she is effectively unable to properly perform his or her duties, which leads to violations of the rights of defendants (suspects) in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine the workload that will fall on the shoulders of those prosecutors who successfully pass the recertification process, since they will “inherit” the cases that were being handled by the “weeded out” employees. This could lead to a catastrophic situation regarding the observance of reasonable time limits for the adjudication of criminal cases.

The steps being taken by lawmakers as part of the reform amount to nothing less than the destruction of the “law enforcement bloc” in the state, another speaker asserts. At the same time, he views the restoration of the coordinating role of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine positively, while emphasizing that staff levels need to be increased not at the Office of the Prosecutor General, but at the local level—in local prosecutor’s offices—since they are at the forefront of the criminal process. The expert also gave a negative assessment of the government’s recently implemented plan to abolish the National Academy of Public Prosecutors of Ukraine, on the basis of which a Training Center for Prosecutors is to be established.

Despite several “show-stopper” legislative initiatives, searches of business representatives have been conducted in a rather harsh manner over the past few months. These are the observations of Denis Ovcharov, which he shared with the participants in the expert discussion. The legislative measures taken so far are insufficient to minimize the risks associated with conducting this investigative action. According to the speaker, the party to the criminal proceedings should now be granted the procedural right to challenge the legality of a search—both the investigating judge’s order authorizing it and the procedure itself—especially in so-called “factual cases.”

Viktor Duma also considers granting the right to challenge evidence as inadmissible at the initial stage of criminal proceedings to be a very good idea. This could be implemented, among other things, by introducing a mechanism for appealing an investigating judge’s ruling authorizing a search.

Work standards must be equally high for all three classic figures in criminal proceedings: judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors—this is the position articulated by a lawyer specializing in dispute resolution, who has experience working in the prosecutor’s office and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Among other things, he drew attention to the problem of the lack of real—rather than merely nominal—procedural independence among employees of pre-trial investigation agencies. At the same time, he identified the legalization (through the adoption of a corresponding law) of private detective services in Ukraine as one of the tools for reducing the workload on investigative agencies.

Participants in the LHS Discussion Hub agreed that lawmakers currently lack a comprehensive vision for reforming the criminal justice system: everything boils down to restructuring agencies and institutions, but personnel alone are not the sole determining factor in this case.