"WE MUST FOCUS ON THE MAIN FUNCTION - THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" - STANISLAV KRAVCHENKO, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

https://pravo.ua/my-povynni-zoseredytys-na-osnovnii-funktsii-zdiisnenni-pravosuddia-holova-verkhovnoho-sudu-stanislav-kravchenko/

SOURCE: YURYDYCHNA PRAKTYKA

The newly elected President of the Supreme Court, Stanislav Kravchenko, is an experienced manager who has held senior positions in the courts since 2014. His election as President of the Supreme Court was supported by an overwhelming majority of Supreme Court judges. In an interview with Yurydychna Praktyka newspaper, Mr. Kravchenko assesses the challenges facing the judiciary in the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion and the corruption scandal that led to his appointment as head of the Supreme Court, discusses self-purification, much needed reforms in the judiciary and the Supreme Court itself, and talks about war crimes and the prospects of bringing the military and political leadership of the aggressor country to justice.

- Mr. Kravchenko, could you state your arguments for and against becoming head of the Supreme Court at this time, in the midst of what is, without exaggeration, an unprecedented corruption scandal?

- In fact, the Ukrainian judiciary has not seen a corruption scandal like the one involving former Supreme Court President Kniaziev since our country gained independence. This scandal has, without exaggeration, done enormous damage to the authority not only of the Supreme Court but of the entire judicial system. And when such a situation occurs, I think it is the moral duty of each of the presidents of the courts who lead their teams to make up their minds and use their knowledge and skills to remedy the situation. So, when the meeting of the judges of the Criminal Cassation Court raised the question of my presidency of the Supreme Court under these circumstances, it came as a natural decision. I no longer had any doubt that I needed to run for this position and try to succeed. And so it happened.

We need to understand what the position of the President of the Supreme Court entails. It is the head of an institution, and it is clear that when there are extremely difficult conditions and the institution has no head, when there is no one to represent it or explain its position, it can have a very negative impact. The President of the Court is also responsible for coordinating the work of all four Courts of Cassation and the Grand Chamber, as well as supervising the numerous staff of each Court and of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (the structures that ensure the work in general). Also, the work in the Grand Chamber itself, because without the participation of the President of the Supreme Court, its work is blocked. And representation in other state authorities and at the international level, as well as membership in the High Council of Justice. Even the status of an acting president cannot ensure this, and so this is obviously an argument in favour.

As for the arguments against it, I was very clear that if I were elected at this difficult time, I would take a lot of the negative publicity personally, because people look at the head of the institution first. But I did it consciously.

- What can the Supreme Court do now to overcome the crisis and restore confidence in the judiciary?

- You see, you can come up with many different phrases or words, but to be honest and truthful, you have to speak in the context of what the Supreme Court does. We cannot invent other functions for it than those defined by the Constitution, the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges", laws regulating procedural activities, i.e. procedural codes. Ensuring justice is one of the functions of the state. That is why it is very important that the administration of justice does not come to a standstill. The suspension of the work of the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have irreparable consequences for the protection of the interests of our citizens. Therefore, when we talk about what can be done, we should focus on ensuring that these functions are fulfilled: that cases are reviewed in cassation, that uniformity of case law is ensured and that non-cassation decisions are analysed. This applies to all jurisdictions.

We're not just declaring our improvement methods: our court hearings are almost all open to the public, even in criminal cases. It is also a register of court decisions, a desire to make these decisions understandable to people, to put them in a language that is not only legal but accessible to all. Ultimately, we want everyone to understand what we do and the logic behind our decisions. Further, those who have gone through certain trials in their lives, who have experienced some very negative events, understand that everything just takes time. Only time and hard work will bring the result I mentioned - the restoration of the confidence and authority of the court. So we will make every effort to do so.

- The Kniaziev incident prompted a reaction from the Verkhovna Rada, which adopted a statement on the need for "tough and uncompromising" measures to combat corruption in the judiciary. Do you agree with this particular wording used by the Verkhovna Rada to define this?

- The President of the Supreme Court is an ex officio member of the High Council of Justice. On behalf of the entire judicial system, the HCJ issued its statement in response to the Verkhovna Rada's, in which we clearly stated that we support our parliament's statement on the need for a tough and uncompromising fight against corruption and stressed that, as this example has shown, there are no untouchables in our country and no one can manipulate this any longer. I think it will be a kind of immunity. In our assessment of the actions of the law enforcement bodies, we clearly stated that they worked efficiently, despite martial law and the involvement of a powerful official.

At the same time, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in its statement the HCJ emphasised that the judiciary has fulfilled all international obligations regarding Ukraine's accession to the European Union and is taking systematic measures to cleanse itself. And together with other authorities, it is doing all it can to ensure our victory.

- How do you assess the steps, in particular, to continue the judicial reform set out in the relevant statement of the Verkhovna Rada? Which of these proposals can be implemented in the near future? And what will really work?

- The Verkhovna Rada's statement is quite long and contains nine points. I can't argue with any of them, and it would be great if we could implement them. But a lot has already been done: the work of the HCJ has been resumed, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine has now started functioning again, and this is an extremely important factor, because without it we simply could not move forward, and the number of judges is decreasing every day. More and more judges are retiring and there are already more than 2,000 vacancies in the judiciary with no judges to fill them. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the procedures for selecting and appointing judges will take a long time.

- How long do you think it will last?

- I think we need to change the approach, in particular, to the appointment of first instance judges. According to the pre-war procedures, it took about 2-2.5 years, including all the stages from initial selection, training of candidates to appointment by the President and swearing in. We simply don't have that time. I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal to Parliament that, at least for a certain period of time, it is necessary to simplify the appointment procedure and to use the resources that are available. In particular, it is possible to raise the issue of appointing judge assistants in a simplified procedure, as they have worked for many years and know exactly what to do.

I would also like to add that with the resumption of the work of the HQCJ, the procedures already underway for the appointment and evaluation of judges will soon be revived. A great deal of work has been done, but even more remains to be done. In addition, these procedures need to be adapted to current realities, as there have already been changes in the territorial structure of Ukraine and the court system proposed at the time now needs to be adapted.

With regard to strengthening the fight against corruption, there were calls for increased liability for corrupt acts. This is undoubtedly the right of the legislator, although I would not say that the current sanctions of the law are lenient. This is not the case. They are quite tough. And this is about ensuring the inevitability of punishment, not making it harsher.

- By the way, the National Security and Defense Council has recently announced its intention to increase criminal liability for corruption offences in the justice sector. What do you think of these and other initiatives announced after the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council?

- Indeed, following this meeting, the website of the President of Ukraine published information that the National Security and Defense Council had appealed to the subjects of the legislative initiative, in particular, regarding the need to strengthen criminal liability for corruption offences in the judiciary and to tighten the vetting of judges.

As I have already mentioned, it is important to ensure the inevitability of punishment in the prosecution of corruption-related crimes. One of the tasks of criminal proceedings is to ensure a prompt, complete and impartial pre-trial investigation and trial, so that everyone who has committed a criminal offence is brought to justice.

Therefore, it is obviously imperative that in criminal proceedings, including those related to corruption offences, pre-trial investigation bodies and courts comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. To ensure that a solid and sustainable evidence base is gathered, where each piece of evidence meets the criteria of relevance, admissibility and reliability, and that all the evidence gathered is relevant and sufficient to reach an appropriate decision.

As for this and other initiatives, we will be able to talk about them in more detail when we see their specific nature.

In this context, it is important to stress the importance of preserving the independence of the judiciary and ensuring the continuity of the administration of justice in order to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

- How many judges actually work in the Supreme Court today?

- There are currently 164 judges in the Supreme Court. The biggest problem is the Criminal Cassation Court: 11 out of 42 judges have already been dismissed. And another judge filed an application that has not yet been considered. That is, a quarter of the judges have already retired, and this affects the workload of the judges of the Criminal Cassation Court. In other jurisdictions, the situation is not much better.

- Is there any information on the number of other Supreme Court judges who are considering retirement or resignation?

- No one is going to give you that answer. After all, a judge's decision to retire or resign is a personal matter. As for the resigning judges, they changed their minds several times: first they applied, then they withdrew. I don't even ask anyone about their motives because I realise it's something internal and everyone makes their own decisions. It is a very personal issue. Although I hope the main wave of people has already left.

Will there be any dismissals due to the current situation amid the corruption scandal? We will also be keeping a close eye on developments. So far, only the former President of the Supreme Court has been served with a notice of suspicion.

- You say there was an outflow of personnel from the Supreme Court. How will you replenish them?

- It is both easy and difficult. The law determines the number of judges in the Supreme Court: it cannot exceed two hundred. We can expect a competition to the Supreme Court, along with other instances. Still, I understand the current realities. The most difficult situation today is in the courts of appeal, and the situation in the first instance is not much better. I think the Supreme Court will hold out for a while, even though it is an additional burden. But we have to focus on the courts of first instance and the courts of appeal. If the state later has the political will to announce a competition for the Supreme Court, we will certainly be happy because it will bring people and new opportunities. It should also be borne in mind that as the appellate courts are filled, the workload of the Supreme Court judges will immediately increase proportionally. We are now coping quite well with the situation, which is partly due to the fact that there are fewer judges working in the appellate courts and consequently fewer cases being appealed to cassation.

- What do you think of the statements about the need "to reform" the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court? In particular, in one of his interviews, the Head of the High Council of Justice stated that the power to determine the sustainability of case law should be returned to the plenums of the Supreme Court. What do you think about it?

- Mr. Usyk (translator’s remark: Head of the High Council of Justice) is certainly entitled to his opinion, as are other judges.

However, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of this issue. Firstly, there is a plenum and we are not forbidden to pass resolutions on all issues. Before the invasion, a plenum meeting was scheduled for 25 February 2022. Dmytro Luspenyk, the Secretary of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, wanted to raise the very question of returning to the resolutions of the Plenum that had been in place before.

I am not in favour of going back to the old ways, especially when there are new mechanisms. Now they are quite clear and more effective. When I was a Vice President of the High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, I was involved in the drafting of plenum resolutions, and several of them were adopted. However, it should be understood that a plenum resolution takes at least 2 years to prepare, or even 2.5 years. Because we first identify the problem areas to be assessed, and then summarise the case law of the appellate courts, we need to systematise it, take into account the case law of the cassation court, and make a decision. There is simply no time for this today. For example, we have listed 19 amendments to criminal and criminal procedure laws related to the war. Well, will any plenum ever be able to catch up with them?

In the course of the reform of the Supreme Court, the legislator has, in my opinion, provided a very good opportunity - to make a decision that will be prejudicial and binding on the Judicial Chamber, the Joint Judicial Chamber and the Grand Chamber. The Criminal Cassation Court, which I used to head, focused on decision-making by the Joint Chamber. In 2021, we produced up to 29 legal opinions on the application of substantive and procedural criminal law. And it's quite a lot. In other words, we have made it clear to all Ukrainian courts that this is the way to proceed in certain situations. This is important because the law stipulates that even if one of the cassation judges does not agree with this position, he or she must either adhere to it or overcome it. This can be done by applying to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court or to the Joint Judicial Chamber for permission to depart from the previous position. I am well aware that the decisions of the joint chambers may not be accepted by all the judges, but it is clear that they have arisen as a result of disputed legal relations and are due to a certain imperfection in the legislative norm. However, it is much more effective. It is impossible to have 29 plenum resolutions in a year. This is a more effective and efficient way of ensuring uniformity of case law.

As for the reform of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, this is a rather complicated issue. This situation has clearly shown that it is necessary to analyse the work of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and, in particular, to examine the powers of the President of the Supreme Court within the Chamber. It is clear to me that it would be right for the legislator to provide that the President of the Supreme Court should not be a member of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Even considering that the SC President is a member of the HCJ, whose decisions are reviewed by the SC Grand Chamber. It is true that the SC President does not normally attend court hearings in such cases, but this is a matter of recusal, i.e. a procedural conflict. We can say that, although he does not participate, he is the President of the Supreme Court. It is important that the objectivity of the entire SC Grand Chamber is unquestioned.

But the most important thing, in my view, is for the legislator to define what constitutes an exceptional legal problem. Today, it is the judges of the Chamber who decide in each case whether such a problem exists or not. This results in a very large number of cases and a heavy workload. Failure to ensure uniformity - this is what the SC Grand Chamber was criticised for. It should be clear that the four Courts of Cassation and the Grand Chamber together form the Supreme Court. The Chamber has extremely important powers, it is also the second instance for all decisions of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, as an appeal, with a lot of cases. Moreover, the category of cases is very complex and important for the state. It is therefore a completely destructive approach for anyone to call for the abolition of the Grand Chamber. It is necessary to look at ways of improving the work of the SC Grand Chamber, but this is a matter for the legislator.

- But if the President of the Supreme Court is not a member of the SC Grand Chamber, what cases is he going to hear?

- I was the head of the Criminal Cassation Court and dealt with cases on an equal footing with the judges. Similarly, by law, each president of a cassation court is an ex officio member of the joint chamber, but he or she sits as a judge there and has no benefits. If this were the case, I would definitely have work to do as a judge, and I would be happy with it.

- Has the introduction of cassation filters affected the uniformity of case law?

- There are almost no cassation filters in criminal proceedings. The only one of them is that the cassation procedure can only be used to appeal against a decision that has been reviewed by an appellate court. Practice shows that if someone is dissatisfied with the decision of the first instance, they file an appeal, and there are only few cases when people raise the issue of cassation review of a case that has not been reviewed by the court of appeal.

In general, however, the procedural filters have not affected the uniformity of case law. After all, all the mechanisms are in place to identify a systemic problem. Although the biggest problem for the criminal justice system is ensuring the uniformity of case law - it is a huge cluster, all the issues of investigating judges, cases of administrative offences (in the pre-war period this was about 1.8 million cases) where there is no cassation.

- The right of legislative initiative for the judiciary: do we need it? Which institution?

- I have pondered this question for a long time, but the answer is clear: there is no need for such a right. Everyone should do their job. On the other hand, the Supreme Court should be involved in the legislative process, and that is what is happening now. In 2021, as President of the SC Criminal Cassation Court, I analysed more than 110 draft laws sent to us by the relevant specialised committees, and we made our suggestions or reservations. The problem is that they are not always taken into account.

- Perhaps not the Supreme Court, but, say, the High Council of Justice as a body of judicial governance...

- I don't see this as a problem. The point is not about how to submit a draft law. We need to draft it properly, to ensure its systematic and harmonious alignment with the legal system.

- What are the options for self-purification of the judiciary, given the currently blocked disciplinary function of the HCJ, and the lengthy procedures in general? The public expects quick decisions.

- We need to look at the term "self-purification". It is used quite a lot, but not everyone analyses what it means.

The fact is that the procedure for appointing a judge, all disciplinary sanctions, whether administrative or criminal, as in the case of the former President of the Supreme Court, the removal of a judge from office, the imposition of a preventive measure and even dismissal are clearly regulated by law.

It is therefore important to understand the opportunities for self-purification provided by the legislator. The Kniaziev case was a vivid example of the judiciary's capacity for self-purification in cases where it is provided for by law. The Plenum of the Supreme Court immediately convened and passed a vote of no confidence in the President of the Supreme Court, resulting in his dismissal.

When we talk about the mechanisms that the presidents of the courts do not often use when they appeal to the HCJ to take disciplinary action against a judge, we have to understand that the president is elected by the judges of the court and not everyone wants to create tension and bring the problem into the public.

I will give you an example: in criminal jurisdiction, when adopting the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the legislator took away such a mechanism as issuing separate rulings. When a judge, considering a case on appeal, saw something wrong in the first instance, he or she had the right to respond to it by a separate ruling, and a separate mechanism for reviewing such a ruling was provided. But in the 2012 Code, the legislator took away the most effective mechanism for the system's self-purification, where colleagues monitor colleagues. All the 9 years that I was involved in organising the work of the criminal jurisdiction, I talked about it all the time.

Other jurisdictions still have the mechanism, but in my view it is not used effectively enough.

- How do you intend to communicate with the public, given the reservations that have been expressed about you personally?

- Speaking of communication with the public, it should be understood that every citizen of Ukraine, every person who sees himself as a lawyer and then as a judge, should realise that this is not just a job and not just a profession. It's not the case when you just do a certain task and get paid. The importance of court decisions lies in the fact that they must be accepted by society, although there is always a confrontation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the victim and the accused. This requires, firstly, a certain level of knowledge, and secondly, organisational skills and strict adherence to the legal procedure. The higher they are, the better. However, working in the courts is only part of the profession, which is essentially a lifestyle, not only at work but also at home and in the family. If you choose this profession, you have to understand that it is not an ordinary job, but a lifestyle. Every step, whether taken in the performance of judicial duties or in the daily routine of private life, will be subject to public scrutiny and evaluation. Communicating with the public in the most open, transparent and accessible way is therefore extremely important. I have always adhered to these principles, and I still do, regardless of my position. As for certain reservations expressed against my election as President of the Supreme Court, all of them have been considered and resolved in the manner prescribed by law. At the same time, the bodies that reviewed these public statements - the High Qualification Commission of Judges, the High Council of Justice, the President of Ukraine and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention - found no violations that would prevent me from exercising my powers as a judge. As to why this information is still being exploited even after this, I am not the one to be asked about it.

- In your election speech, you emphasised that during the war and in the post-war period, most of the work would be entrusted to the criminal courts. Could you please describe the current situation regarding war crimes? What are the achievements of Ukrainian justice? What are the challenges?

- This is true because aggression is a daily tragedy in our country. Attacks against civilians and civilian objects are crimes against peace, security, humanity and international law and order. The relevant term is found in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In general, we call them war crimes. As of 15 June 2023, the Prosecutor General's Office has registered 93,564 such crimes. Society needs to understand that this is not just a formality. In each case, an active investigation is carried out to establish all the circumstances, the damage, the number of victims and, unfortunately, the dead, to identify them and to establish the circle of perpetrators. No less important is the question of compensation.

Our procedural laws are structured in such a way that investigating judges exercise control from the very beginning. This means that the judiciary is involved in the process from the very beginning. The role of the Supreme Court is to shape the jurisprudence in this category of cases, to analyse the practice of investigating judges and to see what happens in this process. In these circumstances, the role of the courts of general jurisdiction, particularly the criminal courts, is now extremely important.

It should also be noted that this is not limited to war crimes. Unfortunately, 17,355 crimes against national security have also been registered so far. There are enough problems, because during the war the legislator made changes, new articles were introduced, in particular, for the first time we have the issue of collaboration (Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). I call it a milder form of high treason. New concepts such as "glorification" or "justification of the aggressor's actions" have also emerged. Often these articles overlap and we are currently developing a clear qualification for them. So, the Supreme Court, like all courts of criminal jurisdiction, has a lot of work to do. Similarly, the number of corruption cases that we have mentioned today did not decrease during the war period. We see one corruption scandal after another. But even in these cases, a proper investigation and trial must be carried out. The other categories of crime have not disappeared either.

At the same time, as I said in my election speech at the Supreme Court Plenum, given the statistics and the large number of cases, I would in no way diminish the role of other jurisdictions. For example, under extremely difficult conditions, the High Council of Justice has taken the step of reopening the courts in Kherson, and these days the first courts have already opened and citizens are already applying to them. Among the first visitors were those who came to establish the fact of death, to accept the inheritance, and there is a large number of appeals to administrative courts to protect their interests. For an individual, this issue is as important and global as any other. In view of the importance of economic processes in the country, can the role of commercial courts be downplayed?

In other words, the role of each jurisdiction should not be underestimated. They all work in their own fields.

- Do you support the restoration of the military court system?

- I said no before the war. Even international institutions have recognised that we have been at war since 2014, and we ourselves have referred to it in a similar way. However, during the Anti-Terrorist Operation, the Joint Forces Operation - the main problem for the criminal jurisdiction was that we had civil legislation in war, and we constantly felt it when trying cases. But I thought we could handle it because our society is softer. Yet during the war, my opinion changed: yes, I definitely support this idea, taking into account several factors. First of all, our army has grown significantly. Now, if the servicemen who are defending our country and whose courage is the reason we are here today raise this issue and say that they need military courts, then we must have them.

In order to fully assess the situation, I would also like to point out that I myself have been the rapporteur in a number of cases relating to military service. These are the cases of the senior soldier Kolmogorov, General Nazarov, and other cases involving issues related to service in volunteer battalions that were later reformed into the National Guard. As a judge of the court of cassation, I can clearly see that there are problems in understanding what constitutes the category of crimes in the field of military service.

Therefore, we should strive to establish military courts. Yet until they are created, we need to think about specialisation, taking into account the opportunities available. It is necessary for the judges who hear these cases to have special training, to understand what a combat situation is, to understand the statute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and to understand these legal relations better. They are not simple and ordinary, there is a certain specificity.

In the absence of such a decision, the general courts will deal with the situation, but more attention should be paid to the training and specialisation of judges.

- This matter was submitted to the Council of Judges of Ukraine, but was withdrawn. What problems could arise from the introduction of such specialisation, with the potentially large number of cases and the reduced number of judges?

- I think that both the Council of Judges of Ukraine and the judges who hold administrative positions clearly understand what needs to be done. As a judge who has been organising the work of the courts since April 2014, I have a clear understanding of what needs to be done. I have offered to my colleagues at the High Council of Justice to voluntarily take responsibility for analysing the overall picture, which courts have a higher workload in this category of cases, which have a lower workload, and to find out which courts need additional resources.

With regard to the category of war crimes, I would like to emphasise the need to distinguish between the concepts. Nowadays, people often ask: do we need military courts to hear war crimes cases? It's not right. These courts will never consider this category of cases. Military courts - are intended to consider cases of crimes committed during military service. This is a separate chapter of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. If they are created, this will be the scope of their work.

So, I support the idea of specialisation, and I have my own recipes. Some time ago, we introduced anti-corruption specialisation for judges in the Criminal Cassation Court. This category of cases was first dealt with by the Third Chamber and is now dealt with by the First Judicial Chamber. After 3 years we changed it so that people would change. What is the recipe? First, only certain judges hear all corruption-related cases. However, if the number of such cases is less than the rest, they will also consider other cases to ensure that the workload is balanced.

In other words, crimes committed by military personnel are dealt with by a specific judge, and if the number of such cases is small, he or she also deals with other cases on an equal footing with other judges. The fact that there should be balance and equal load is the very basis of the automated distribution system. If specialisation is introduced and the number of cases increases (and there are already such courts, as the number of military personnel is increasing and, accordingly, the number of military crimes is increasing), then we should consider seconding judges for a certain period of time to deal with such cases. What kind of judges are they? Firstly, these are judges of the courts located in the temporarily occupied territories who are not able to work. I understand that it is safer to work somewhere in the central part of Ukraine or in the western regions, but if circumstances develop in this way, a judge should also take moral responsibility. Moreover, the law for the period of martial law allowed for the secondment of judges who worked in the occupied territories even without their consent. There is no doubt that marital status, gender, age and health should be taken into account, but I am convinced that there is a certain resource, that we can choose the right judges from among these judges, and this is a contribution to victory.

As for the introduction of specialisation in the courts of first instance, I can only speak about certain categories of cases, which have increased over time. In other cases, I am against the division of judges in first instance courts into "civil" and "criminal" judges. This shouldn't be the case. Specialisation is a luxury that we cannot afford today. However, it is the consideration of crimes committed during military service that is the need of the hour, which must be met, and then return to the normal state of affairs.

- Let's get back to war crimes: is there any analysis of cases in this category for the sake of uniformity of case law?

- From the very first day. As early as April 2022, we realised that we had new categories of cases. There were several cases of the crime of aggression before the full-scale invasion. One case has even been referred to the Grand Chamber. Unfortunately, it is still pending. Among other things, there was the question of initiation and execution of an aggressive war. The initiation is clear, but the execution... Which subject should we focus on: the president of the aggressor country, the minister of defense, or an officer or soldier who is involved in combat operations and is actually waging an aggressive war? In my opinion, there is a need for a legal definition here.

So once the legislation was changed, we realised that we needed to carefully analyse what was happening in order to shape the jurisprudence, and the Supreme Court is doing a good job of that. There were judges who did this on their own initiative. However, the cassation receives only the first cases. We constantly analyse general statistics in all courts to keep our finger on the pulse. It is very important to identify systemic problems and determine their nature. Let me remind you again the example of initiation and execution of an aggressive war. What is an aggressive war? How is it different from a conventional war? We analyse the judgments that reflect this.

Or, for example, violating the rules and customs of war. The legislator took a rather interesting approach to the wording of this provision. He included, for example, violence against civilians or forced labour in the disposition of the article. In other words, the legislator has already defined what constitutes a violation of the customs and rules of war, but then there is the phrase "and other violations of international conventions". At this point we have already analysed the conventions of the last hundred years. We have even compiled a table of conventions and international tribunal decisions that contain certain definitions. For example, what constitutes violence against civilians or rape in certain circumstances.

It is very important that both prosecutors and courts apply the law correctly, and that the world understands that Ukraine strictly adheres to international law and the case law of international courts.

The International Criminal Court has actively supported us, and other international institutions have joined us. I am very grateful for the assistance in organising the training of Ukrainian judges. 90 judges attended the training in Warsaw on these very issues. It is very important for us to have an understanding that we are in tune with the whole world. In my opinion, what is happening in Ukraine should be assessed by international institutions in the context of compliance with international law. It's obvious that this is not just Ukraine's problem.

- Does the Supreme Court cooperate with the International Criminal Court and the ICC Prosecutor?

- Both current ICC judges and judges who had previously worked there helped us to organise the events. There have been a number of joint discussions on the formation of case law. Our judges have also visited the ICC to study practices and approaches.

However, it must be clearly understood that the ICC is the Rome Statute. In other words, if you want to be with us, you have to follow the rules. However, the Rome Statute in Ukraine is a rather complicated story.

So, when we talk about full cooperation with the ICC, we need to understand that we have to ratify the Rome Statute and follow the rules set out in it.

- Which court do you think will ultimately bring Putin and his henchmen to justice?

- As early as April 2022, the President of Ukraine chaired a large meeting to discuss the issue of bringing senior officials of the aggressor country to justice, the equally important issue of compensation for damages, and who should deal with these issues. We developed a position - which we announced worldwide - to create a special tribunal for high-ranking officials of the Russian Federation. Certain steps have been taken in this direction and I hope that the court will be established.

We know that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, which is also a very important and serious message. It will be determined by politicians, not in Ukraine, but by our partners who support us, and by the formula they choose. Although, in my opinion, this is not the most important issue. The main thing is that those who unleashed this war be punished for what is happening to our country. Which institution will do this depends on the political will of the countries that support us.

The responsibility of everyone else, except for high-ranking officials, is the work of the national courts, and we are ready for that, even if it is difficult now.

(Anatolii Hvozdetskyi, Yurydychna Praktyka newspaper)