How the iCase electronic criminal proceedings system works

Introduction

On December 16, 2021, NABU-SAPO registered the first criminal proceedings in the iCase system, which facilitates the gradual transition to electronic document exchange in criminal proceedings involving NABU, SAPO, and HACC.

The development of the system began in 2019 with technical, expert, and financial support from the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI). The transition from paper to digital is designed to enhance the effectiveness of investigations, ensure transparency in the work of anti-corruption bodies, and save resources.

In this analytical note, the lawyers of Transparency International Ukraine identified the preliminary results following the launch and implementation of the electronic criminal proceedings system, and outlined the potential for expanding its use during pre-trial investigations and criminal proceedings.

The origin and chronology of the electronic criminal proceedings system’s launch

The active discussion of implementing electronic criminal proceedings (ECP) began with the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) in 2012.

The primary reason for introducing the ECP was to reduce the potential for abuses, falsifications, and other negative impacts of the human factor that could compromise the objectivity of the proceedings. However, saving time, effort, and money for participants in the criminal process was also a key consideration.

At the time, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine allowed only limited use of digital solutions in criminal proceedings due to the low efficiency and underdevelopment of information and telecommunication systems and networks. Despite this, in the same year 2012, the digitization of the criminal process was initiated: the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (URPI) and the Automated Court Document Management System (ACDMS), which in 2017 turned into the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS).

The second stage of digitization involves coordinating relationships between these systems, particularly through the use of the iCase information and telecommunications system for pre-trial investigations.

Since 2018, the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative in Ukraine (EUACI) has been studying the technical feasibility of the project. Since 2019, EUACI has been directly developing the system’s software product. In 2020, iCase was transferred to NABU and launched as a pilot project.

The system was first presented to the public in April 2020 during a web conference hosted by the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement, in collaboration with the Prosecutor General’s Office, NABU, and the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative. In December 2021, the parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and NABU, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, and the HACC issued a joint Order titled “On the Information and Telecommunications System of Pre-Trial Investigation ‘iCase.” According to the explanatory note on the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislators’ ultimate goal is to minimize and eventually eliminate paper proceedings at both the pre-trial investigation and court stages.

This marked the beginning of a new era in the digitalization of criminal justice in Ukraine. On December 16, 2021, NABU and SAPO announced the registration of the system’s first criminal proceedings.

Following the onset of the full-scale invasion, this process was paused until the summer of 2022.

Currently, the iCase system is actively developing, and the rate at which criminal proceedings are being entered there is increasing. As of the end of 2023, more than 500 criminal proceedings were entered into the system, and in 7 months of 2024, their number increased 2.5 times to 1,242.

Since April 2024, the system has enabled the submission of motions for search warrants and motions for temporary access to items and documents to the HACC.

However, these results are preliminary — iCase is not yet fully operational. The system’s potential is being realized only to the extent of the organizational and legal capacities of NABU, SAPO, and HACC.

International experience of using electronic criminal proceedings systems

Ukraine is not the first country to introduce electronic criminal proceedings. Several developed countries have long utilized similar systems to optimize their criminal justice processes, including the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the USA, Germany, Austria, Georgia, Estonia, Moldova, Italy, Azerbaijan, and many others. All of them have different approaches to implementing the idea of ECP in practice.

For example, in the Czech Republic, electronic criminal proceedings have been in operation since 2006, based on the Czech e-Case Management System model. This system uses a specialized local Intranet rather than the open Internet, providing greater protection from external interference. However, this approach also limits network functionality and makes it more challenging to involve non-officials in the system. If we use the Czech model as a basis for expanding the functionality of the Ukrainian iCase system, it could enable full involvement of the defense side and other participants in the process.

In the Republic of Lithuania, pre-trial investigations have been conducted using the electronic system Integruotos baudžiamojo proceso informacinės sistemos (ІBPS) since 2016. According to Article 8-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Lithuania, material processing by this system follows procedures developed by the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General, in consultation with the Council of Judges and the Bar Council. It is noteworthy that the self-government bodies of the bar were also involved in the approval of the procedure.

An example of a highly integrated ECP system is the AZEMIS system, introduced in 2014 in Azerbaijan. It is integrated with over 30 information systems and registries from other institutions, and this integration is continuously expanding. Ukraine should follow this example and integrate iCase with such systems as URLU, ASEP, USREOU, databases of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, etc.

A notable aspect of the US experience with ECP is the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to predict various crime factors. AI can also recognize and analyze criminal proceedings materials, as well as search for potential evidence in databases and on the Internet. Therefore, Ukraine should consider integrating AI algorithms into its ECP system.

Legal regulation of electronic criminal proceedings in the national criminal procedural legislation

Since 2021, national criminal procedural legislation has introduced a new communication tool for participants in criminal proceedings: the information and telecommunication system for pre-trial investigations.

Its operation is regulated by Article 106-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as the special Regulation on the information and telecommunications system of pre-trial investigation iCase, approved by the joint Order No. 175/390/57/72 dated December 15, 2021.

In that regulation, the iCase system is defined as a system that ensures the creation, collection, storage, search, processing, and transmission of materials and information in criminal proceedings.

For example, Article 106-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine outlines key aspects of working with the system, including:

• the list of mandatory and optional system users;
• the general procedure for exchanging materials (or copies thereof);
• legal status of signed electronic documents in the system;
• the procedure for resolving gaps in the legal regulation of the system’s operation and the principles of its protection against unauthorized intervention.

In fact, these changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine legalized the full conduct of the case in electronic format and allowed the integration of the iCase system with the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (URPI) and the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System (UJICS).

By HACC Order No. 35, dated November 17, 2023, the iCase system was officially adopted for regular use in the court. Additionally, this order enabled the acceptance of motions from detectives and prosecutors for search warrants. Changes introduced by Order No. 7 on February 23, 2024, further allowed for motions seeking temporary access to items and documents to be accepted.

An important innovation of the first HACC Order was the rationalization of material resource use. It eliminated the requirement for court staff to convert all submitted documents into paper format, allowing court proceedings to be conducted primarily in digital format. A paper case consists of only six types of documents: (1) a certificate of receipt of procedural documents by the HACC through iCase, (2) an automated distribution report, (3) receipts from persons involved in the case, (4) a log of the court session, (5) accepted court documents and decisions in the case, and (6) a working copy of the technical record (if available).

However, many questions remained legally unresolved. For example, NABU is currently developing a mechanism for remote involvement of other participants in criminal proceedings. The full implementation of the system will require further amendments to Article 106-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as adjustments to by-laws, which we will discuss in more detail in the following sections.

Currently, the HACC facilitates the process of acquainting other participants in criminal proceedings with motions for temporary access by using electronic and digital media, as well as stationary computers with access to materials from the iCase system.

According to the provision on iCase, the use of the system by the defense and other participants in criminal proceedings will be implemented taking into account the functional, organizational and logistical readiness of the ECP system. Defense representatives are expected to participate in discussions on potential changes to this regulation, which, in our opinion, will positively impact the balance of the act’s provisions.

In the future, the mandatory use of the system should be expanded to include all law enforcement agencies and courts. The comprehensive strategic plan for reforming law enforcement agencies includes the step-by-step implementation of an electronic system for managing criminal proceedings. This will require extensive equipment replacement and modernization, ensuring IT system compatibility, uninterrupted operation, interoperability, and access for all participants in criminal proceedings.

To achieve this, additional resources and changes are required, including significant legislative transformations that take into account the experience of NABU, SAPO, and HACC in using the iCase system.

The main results and problems of the day-to-day operation of the iCase system based on the experience of NABU, SAPO and HACC from December 1, 2023

The day-to-day operation of the iCase system in cooperation with HACC began on December 1, 2023. At the same time, NABU and SAPO gained the ability to submit motions for search warrants, and starting from March 1, 2024, they could also submit motions for temporary access to items and documents.

As of July 12, 2024, 1,242 criminal proceedings were entered into the system. The system also allows for the creation of procedural documents using 58 template forms, and it has significantly increased the efficiency of procedural interactions between detectives, prosecutors, and the court.

As of July 8, 2024, NABU and SAPO had submitted 1,020 motions to the HACC via the iCase system, including 753 for search warrants and 267 for temporary access. Of these motions, investigative judges of the HACC had already considered 991.

The trend of active system use remains high. This is evident when comparing the number of search warrant motions submitted through the iCase system with those submitted without it.

Of the 1,047 search motions received by the HACC as of July 8 this year, 753 were submitted through iCase, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the total. We observed the same ratio on April 1, 2024.

In contrast, the number of motions for temporary access is relatively low. Of the 666 such motions received by the court, only 267 were submitted through iCase, accounting for just two-fifths of the total.

In 2023, NABU detectives submitted over 1,700 search motions and the same number of motions for temporary access to the HACC in paper form. The total number of investigative motions for the year exceeded 9,000, resulting in an enormous amount of paperwork. This volume will largely be avoided in the future thanks to the iCase system.

Based on these indicators, we have identified several issues in the operational implementation of the ECP system.

1. Entry of criminal proceedings into the iCase system

Currently, not all criminal proceedings are entered into the iCase system, so some motions have been and will continue to be submitted to the HACC in paper format.

Proceedings are entered into the system based on the following priorities:

• proceedings started on or after December 1, 2023 (automatic transfer from the URPI);
• proceedings that require active investigative (procedural) actions;
• proceedings in which there are suspects.

At the same time, the following are not entered into the iCase system:

• criminal proceedings regarding misdemeanors;
• criminal proceedings registered before December 16, 2021;
• some separate and combined proceedings.

However, prioritizing the introduction of criminal proceedings into the system is fully justified, as it helps to rationalize resource expenditure promptly and effectively.

2. Limited option to refer to the investigative judge with other types of motions

The iCase system is gradually expanding its functionality, but currently, it supports only two types of motions for interaction with the court. The pilot launch of the system focused on motions for search warrants because these do not require summoning any parties other than the detective or prosecutor.

As the system improved, NABU developed a plan to expand the range of procedural documents that detectives can submit to the HACC. Initially, this includes motions for the seizure of property, extension of the pre-trial investigation period, application of interim measures, and other related requests.

3. Absence of a module to facilitate interaction between the defense and prosecution sides

Currently, the iCase system’s interaction with the HACC resembles the “Electronic Court” system, allowing the prosecution to submit motions containing pre-trial investigation secrets to the HACC without risking information leakage. And the court can make a decision without printing many documents on paper.

However, greater prospects for speeding up criminal proceedings and improving interaction between participants will arise when the defense side gains the ability to interact electronically with the prosecution. For example, when defense attorneys can submit motions or review case materials through iCase.

To begin processing general motions in the system, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Regulations on the iCase system will be necessary. In particular, clarification will have to be made to:

• provisions on the time of receipt of the document;
• the procedure for reviewing original materials (both electronic and paper) and confirming this familiarization.
• the order of examination of evidence by the court during the consideration of the case on its merits;
• organizational features of working with the system by other participants in criminal proceedings.

The HACC has already encountered challenges in organizing the process of familiarizing parties with the materials of motions for temporary access. Please note that while NABU detectives have been able to submit such motions electronically since March 1, 2024, Article 163, Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine requires that consideration of these motions may involve summoning another participant, such as the property owner. As a result, there have already been instances where court staff had to “extract” materials from the system onto electronic and digital media for review by these individuals.

The solution to this problem is to fully involve these individuals in accessing and working with the materials in the system. The absence of a clear procedure can lead to procedural burdens for the detective, prosecutor, or court, and create additional obstacles for other participants in the criminal proceedings.

At Transparency International Ukraine, we support a gradual and swift transition to the new format for filing and other procedural documents. However, it is essential to first address the problems that have already emerged during the ECP system’s operational phase.

4. The issue of the integration of the iCase system with the courts of higher instances

The regulation on the automated court document management system does not mandate a uniform system for all courts. For instance, while the vast majority of general local and appellate courts use the “D-3” system, the Supreme Court operates its own “DocProf” system, with the Kyiv Court of Appeals being the exception.

At the outset of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s establishment, it was anticipated that the court would receive case materials from general courts for continued consideration. Therefore, it was decided to use the same document management systems in both the HACC and the general courts. Although both instances of the HACC use the single “D-3” system, its integration with the iCase system remains incomplete.

In practice, only HACC first instance employees have access to iCase. The electronic exchange of procedural documents with participants in criminal proceedings is still unavailable for the Appeals Chamber of the HACC and the Supreme Court.

The absence of such access will impede the broader adoption of electronic criminal procedure tools. For example, if there is an appeal or cassation appeal against decisions in cases entered into the iCase system, participants in criminal proceedings and court employees will need to revert to traditional paper formats. This will create additional inconveniences and diminish the cost-effectiveness of the process.

Therefore, connecting the Appeals Chamber of the HACC and the Supreme Court to the iCase system, along with fully integrating it with the document circulation system of the first instance of the HACC, are essential steps that must be implemented in the near future.

Use of electronic systems in civil, economic and administrative processes

For civil, economic, and administrative proceedings, the only unified method of electronic and digital communication is through the UJITS modules “Electronic Account” and “Electronic Court.” With their help, participants in the case can engage in procedural communication with the court and other participants, as well as review the case materials.

In accordance with Article 6, Part 6of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine (EPC of Ukraine), Article 13, Part 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine (CCP of Ukraine), and Article 18, Part 6 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAP of Ukraine), lawyers, notaries, state and private bailiffs, forensic experts, state authorities, local self-government bodies, as well as other legal entities are required to register their electronic accounts on UJITC. For other participants, this is not an obligation but a right.

Functionally, the “Electronic Court” minimizes paperwork and establishes a quick, convenient process for interacting with all participants in the case registered in the system. However, participants always have the right to request documents in paper form by submitting a separate application.

One feature of the “Electronic Court” is its function for sending electronic summonses for court hearings. Accordingly, a person is deemed notified from the moment they receive a court summons in their electronic account.

The public reception hall of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union in Khmelnytskyi attempted to investigate citizens’ awareness and ability to apply to court using “alternative methods,” particularly through the UJITC “Electronic Court” subsystem.

Of the 67% of respondents who attempted to register and use the system, only 8% were unable to complete the process, while 82% successfully utilized its functions. The survey revealed that the largest share of problems — one-third — was related to signing documents in the “Electronic Court” subsystem. The interviewees also reported the following problems: non-functioning electronic signatures, difficulty and lack of clarity in the system, instability of the “Electronic Court,” and instances where the system (website) did not work or failed to open.

This user experience should be considered in the full implementation of the iCase electronic criminal proceedings system.

The implemented model of the Electronic Court partially reflects the concept of the iCase system, which is currently being integrated into the criminal process. However, a complete comparison is not possible, as the models for civil, economic, and administrative proceedings differ significantly from the criminal proceedings model, where interaction among participants is more prevalent during the pre-trial investigation stage.

Prospects of expanding the system and problems of guaranteeing the rights of the defense party in electronic criminal proceedings

The main obstacle to the widespread use of the iCase system in pretrial investigations is the difficulty of effectively, safely, and legally involving “external” participants in the system. First and foremost, this concerns a professional cohort, including representatives of victims, legal entities, and defense attorneys.

Criminal procedure law grants defenders and suspects (including the accused, convicted, and acquitted) a wide range of rights, the exercise of which depends on their actual ability to participate in investigative and procedural actions.

The regulation on the functioning of the ECP system envisions the gradual involvement of additional participants in criminal proceedings, aside from the prosecution and the court, which already have unrestricted access to the system. According to the implementation plan of the State Anti-Corruption Program, NABU must provide the defense with the opportunity to review case materials in the iCase system by September 2024. This involves providing access to or electronic copies of case materials in accordance with Article 221 and Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

However, this is not the only focus of the system; its key functionality also encompasses procedural interactions between these participants and the detective, prosecutor, and court.

Currently, no normative legal act has been submitted for public discussion to address the involvement of the defense party and other participants (such as victims, representatives of legal entities, and individuals whose rights and legitimate interests are affected).

Additionally, there are several problems with the system that currently hinder the full involvement of other participants. They include:

• imperfectly regulated familiarization with case materials in the system, which may cause such actions to be recognized as illegal (in particular, violation of the order of familiarization may result in the recognition of evidence as inadmissible);
• the need to convert a significant part of materials into digital format from paper and vice versa during procedural communication;
• inability to submit procedural documents to the court that require the involvement of other participants in criminal proceedings;
• potential difficulties with the opening of the case materials after the completion of the pre-trial investigation in accordance with Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine;
• possible difficulties with the investigation in court of materials of criminal proceedings that were stored and opened in the system.

In developing solutions to these problems, it is important to determine the level of involvement required from other participants in the iCase system.

First of all, such persons may need extensive use of the following system functions:

• familiarization with case materials;
• procedural communication with detectives and prosecutors;
• submitting complaints to the investigating judge regarding the actions of the prosecution.

Based on feedback from the prosecution and defense parties, we can identify three possible forms of involvement for other participants in working with the system.

The first option is to provide access to the iCase system through a dedicated electronic account. It will function as an analogue to the Electronic Court, granting authorized users the necessary access rights to utilize the aforementioned capabilities.

At the same time, it is necessary to separately reserve the right to submit procedural documents to the court in other ways, particularly in paper format and through the UJICS system’s “Electronic Court” module.

This method of involvement is the most rational and comprehensive, as it will help prevent confusion in procedural communication and enhance the speed of most procedures.

However, before introducing the e-account, it is essential to clearly regulate the obligation for defenders and representatives in criminal proceedings to register it and legally enshrine this requirement in Article 106-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine — similar to the registration in the “Electronic Court.” Other participants in criminal proceedings should implement such registration on a voluntary basis.

An important aspect is also the standardization of time limits for receiving, opening, and processing procedural documents and materials by account users. This will help prevent opportunities for abuse by the parties. The system’s functionality should include the capability to log the date, time, and the individuals responsible for any actions taken with the mentioned documents. Additionally, it should allow users to request and receive relevant extracts or references from the system as needed.

The second approach involves providing access to the iCase system via the Electronic Court module. In this scenario, the integration of systems means that other participants, such as defense attorneys, would access the iCase system indirectly through the Electronic Court platform in which they are required to register.

At first glance, such a cost-saving solution may create certain technical problems, since, under these conditions, court resources will be involved in the procedural interaction between the defense and the prosecution. This may affect the viability of such an engagement model. Additionally, it is important to mention the problems encountered when working with UJICS modules. However, in this case, significant amendments to the legislation are not required.

The third option is to provide access to the iCase system through designated areas within NABU premises. This form of interaction is the least versatile, as it only allows other participants to review the case materials. All other procedural actions will continue to be conducted in the traditional manner — by sending paper letters or emails.

In any of the selected options, participants must retain the right to receive complete information (in the form of an extract or certificate) about the status, date, time, and subject of processing of procedural documents and materials contained in the system. It is also important that the system records all data changes, as this ensures compliance with proper legal procedures and prevents the concealment of any violations of the rights of suspects (accused).

Given that the foundation of criminal proceedings is the prompt examination of evidence by the court, the defense and other participants must have unhindered access to the original documents for review. Therefore, it is appropriate to amend Article 221, Part 3, and Article 290, Part 3, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to specify that, upon the motion of a party or participant, they have the right to directly examine the original documents instead of relying solely on electronic copies.

Technical problems may arise that could negatively affect the implementation of the proposed provisions. However, these issues can be addressed through the development of a specific judicial practice by the HACC.

Conclusions

The introduction of the iCase system in NABU and SAPO, along with its partial integration with the Higher Anti-Corruption Court’s “D-3” document management system, is a step toward digitizing the criminal justice system and enhancing its efficiency. The adopted normative acts enable the handling of a certain number of procedural documents. The relatively small volume of motions in the initial stages of implementing the iCase system allows for the identification of shortcomings and problematic areas in the interaction process.

From international practices in digitalizing criminal proceedings, the following experiences are useful: ensuring the system’s protection from external interference, coordinating with bar self-governing bodies on system usage procedures, and integrating the system with state and other registers. Currently, not all of these positive aspects are accounted for in the Ukrainian iCase system, so they represent areas for potential development.

In the future, the following issues with using the iCase system may become problematic:

• entry of criminal proceedings into the system,
• lack of opportunity to contact the investigating judge with a higher number of motions,
• absence of a module to facilitate electronic interaction between the defense and prosecution sides,
• lack of full integration of iCase with document management systems of higher courts.

With the full implementation of electronic interaction among participants in criminal proceedings, it will be necessary to address technical capacity issues to ensure the system can handle requests from a large number of participants and support document signing with a qualified electronic signature.

Involving other participants in working with the system could help resolve several existing problems, such as transferring criminal proceedings into a digital format and allowing participants to become familiar with case materials over an extended period.

There are various options for involving more participants in the electronic criminal proceedings system; however, legislative amendments are necessary to implement them. For example, this includes mandating registration in the system and confirming the review of specific procedural documents.

We at Transparency International Ukraine support the implementation of ECP based on the iCase system. At the same time, expanding the system’s functionality is possible by addressing key organizational and legal problems, as well as the solutions we have proposed in this Analytical Note. The areas of work we have described aim to help find the best ways to overcome the challenges currently facing NABU, SAPO, and HACC, and to genuinely improve the functionality of the ECP iCase system.

Dictionary of Abbreviations

ASEP means Automated System of Executive Proceedings

ACDMS means Automated Court Document Management System

HACC means High Anti-Corruption Court

CPC Ukraine means Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine

ECP means Electronic Criminal Proceedings

USREOU means Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organisations of Ukraine

URLU means Unified Register of Lawyers of Ukraine

URPI means Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations

UJICS means the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System

UJITC means Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System

CAP Ukraine means Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine

CPC Ukraine means Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine

MIA means Ministry of Internal Affairs

NABU means the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine

SAPO means Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office

CCP means Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine

This analytical note was prepared within the framework of the program on institutional development of Transparency International Ukraine, which is carried out with the financial support of Sweden. Opinions, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the organization’s experts and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of Sweden. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this analytical note.

This material was prepared by: 

Head of the department: Kateryna Ryzhenko, Deputy Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine for Legal Affairs

The analytical note was developed by:

Pavlo Demchuk, Legal Advisor at Transparency International Ukraine,

Andrii Tkachuk, Junior Legal Advisor at Transparency International Ukraine.