Rights court warns Ukraine wartime fears aren’t enough to keep suspects behind bars

(CN) — Ukraine’s war against Russia does not mean every national security suspect belongs in jail while waiting for trial, Europe’s human rights court ruled Thursday.

The European Court of Human Rights said Ukraine had no good reason to keep Anatoliy Derevyanko, a grain-factory engineer accused of collaborating during Russia’s occupation, and Yuliya Tarasova, a pharmaceutical sales representative accused of helping medicine reach Russia, behind bars before trial.

After Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine made pretrial detention the default for many national security offenses during martial law, while still allowing judges to order bail or other less restrictive measures. The European court said that did not relieve Ukrainian judges of their obligation to explain why detention remained necessary in each individual case.

Derevyanko spent nearly 20 months in custody after prosecutors accused him of running a grain-processing plant in Balakliya, an eastern Ukrainian city seized by Russian forces early in the war, and cooperating with the Russian-installed occupation authorities. Ukrainian courts repeatedly cited the risk he might flee to Russia or influence witnesses, relying largely on the prison sentence he faced.

The European court said that was not enough.

“The danger of an accused’s absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the sentence risked,” the judges wrote.

The judges noted Derevyanko remained at his registered address for months after Ukrainian forces retook Balakliya despite knowing he was under investigation. They also found no persuasive reason to keep citing the risk of witness interference after key witnesses had testified, while later claims that he might reoffend were unsupported.

Tarasova was accused of disguising shipments of anesthetic medicine that appeared destined for Estonia and Armenia but prosecutors said were actually headed to Russia through Belarus, despite wartime trade restrictions. She denied intending to assist Russia and said she had cooperated with investigators long before her arrest.

The court rejected Tarasova’s challenge to the legality of her arrest, finding there was enough evidence to justify the initial suspicion against her. But it found no convincing reason to keep her in custody, pointing to her cooperation with investigators, voluntary access to her phone and decision to remain in Ukraine despite knowing she was under investigation. Instead, Ukrainian courts relied on generalized assertions that she might flee, influence witnesses or destroy evidence without explaining why those risks applied to her personally.

Balakliya fell under Russian occupation in March 2022 before Ukrainian forces recaptured it during a major counteroffensive that September. Many civilians continued working in essential services and local businesses while living under occupation, later raising difficult questions about where survival ended and criminal collaboration began.

However, the case was different for two former police officers accused of filming Ukrainian military fortifications in Kharkiv and sending the footage to Russian intelligence-linked Telegram channels. In a separate ruling Thursday, the court concluded Ukrainian judges had good reason to keep them behind bars pending trial.

The judges found Ukrainian courts had concrete reasons to keep the men in custody, citing the evidence against them, their background as former police officers, the risk they could interfere with the investigation or reoffend, and the fact that the case unfolded while Kharkiv was under sustained Russian attack. They also found no indication authorities failed to conduct the proceedings with the “special diligence” required by the convention.

Brice Dickson, an emeritus professor of law at Queen’s University Belfast, said the rulings showed the court carefully distinguished between cases where judges relied on generalized assumptions and those backed by concrete evidence.

He said the court reaffirmed that keeping someone in pretrial detention requires “relevant and sufficient” reasons supported by credible evidence, and that authorities must pursue criminal proceedings with “special diligence.” A potential prison sentence alone, he said, should not be treated as proof that a suspect is likely to flee.

Dickson said the former police officers lost because domestic courts identified risks that did not exist in the other case. Their investigative experience meant they were better placed to influence witnesses or obstruct the inquiry, while wartime conditions also made it harder for authorities to prevent suspects from fleeing to Russia or Russian-occupied territory.

Sergiy Chub, Derevyanko’s lawyer at Gardium Law Firm in Ukraine, said investigators and courts failed to account for the reality facing civilians trapped under Russian occupation.

“Our client and other residents lived in a settlement that was practically subjected to daily shelling and destruction,” Chub said. “The logistics for supplying food, water and basic necessities were severely strained, forcing people to survive under conditions of a humanitarian crisis and constant threat to life.”

According to Chub, Derevyanko and other workers kept the grain plant operating to protect Ukrainian-owned property from looting and help secure food and water after supply lines collapsed.

“Fair, balanced and impartial justice — one that clearly distinguishes between the forced survival of civilians under occupation and genuine crimes against national security — is indispensable,” he said, adding that the ruling helps draw that distinction and strengthens public trust during wartime.

Chub said the defense is continuing to appeal Derevyanko’s conviction in the Ukrainian courts and hopes the judgment will ultimately lead to the full restoration of his rights.

Lawyers representing Tarasova and the two former police officers, as well as Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The judgments are not yet final and either side may seek referral to the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber within three months. Unless the court agrees to hear the cases, the rulings will stand.

Derevyanko’s conviction remains under review before Ukraine’s Supreme Court, Tarasova has been free on bail since June 2024, and the Strasbourg court said it had no recent information on the status of the proceedings against Kolesnytskyy and Smelnytskyy. The decisions say nothing about the applicants’ guilt or innocence, addressing only whether they should have been kept in custody before trial.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.