Mobilization and Justice: what Draft Law No. 13284 Changes

On 14 May 2025, Anastasiia Radina, the head of the Anti-Corruption Committee, together with other MPs, registered Draft Law No. 13284 on the specifics of criminal liability for persons conscripted into military service.

The authors believe that these amendments will prevent the unjustified suspension of judicial proceedings due to the formal mobilization of individuals accused in high-profile corruption cases. The draft is currently under further review in the Law Enforcement Committee.

Brief conclusions:

• The draft proposes simultaneously expanding the circle of persons whose cases may be suspended due to the defendant’s mobilization and narrowing the grounds for such suspension.
• It introduces a new ground for suspending the statute of limitations, the suspension of court proceedings due to a defendant’s military service.
• While the draft partly addresses the issue of evading criminal liability, its provisions could be further improved to reduce the number of potential complications.

Our recommendations:

• Suspend court proceedings only for defendants who are directly involved in combat operations or combat (special) missions.
• Provide for the possibility of resuming court proceedings against defendants who, either temporarily or permanently, cease direct involvement in combat or the aforementioned missions.
• Revise the procedure for confirming that a person conscripted during the special period or serving under a military contract is unable to participate in court proceedings.
• Clarify that the statute of limitations shall be suspended not only in NABU cases but in all criminal proceedings for corruption-related offenses listed in the note to Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
• Add the performance of actions under international legal cooperation as a new ground for suspending the statute of limitations.
• Amend the point at which the statute of limitations ends, from when the verdict enters into force to when it is delivered by the first instance court.

How these issues are handled now 

Today, legislation and court practice allow court proceedings to be suspended due to mobilization, enabling some defendants in high-level corruption cases to avoid criminal liability.

This is due to the following factors:

• Courts must suspend proceedings once a defendant is conscripted, without assessing their actual ability to participate in hearings.
• Proceedings resume only after the defendant is discharged from military service.
• The statute of limitations is not suspended during the defendant’s service. 

What is proposed in the draft law?

The authors propose amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to:

• Ensure that proceedings are suspended only for defendants directly involved in the defense of Ukraine.
• Under such conditions, allow suspension for defendants serving under contract.
• Suspend the statute of limitations in NABU/SAPO cases when proceedings are halted due to mobilization of defendants.
• Resume the statute of limitations once the defendant is dismissed from service or when court hearings are resumed.

What can be improved in the draft law?

Although the draft contains many solid provisions, there is still room for refinement to minimize practical challenges. This will reduce the number of issues arising in practice.

Court proceedings should be suspended only for the time of combat (special) missions

The draft proposes to suspend proceedings for defendants directly involved in operations to defend Ukraine, its people, and national interests in response to the Russian Federation’s military aggression.

Overall, the abolition of practice of unconditional suspension of court proceedings because of formal “mobilization” of defendants proposed by the authors is a positive moment consistent with our recommendations. However, the wording is too broad, allowing for suspending cases for persons who will be in regions where their involvement will not potentially hinder consideration of the case remotely.

Therefore, it would be reasonable to stipulate that suspension of proceedings is allowed only when the defendants are objectively unable to participate in court hearings due to direct engagement in defense operations in their actual areas of deployment, namely, on temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories, in frontline zones between the defense forces and aggressor troops, and during the execution of combat (special) missions. Such wording would align with provisions governing additional remuneration for military personnel.

It is also important that prosecutors or courts are able to assess whether proceedings may continue in cases suspended before the adoption of this law.

The draft fails to address situations where mobilized defendants stop being directly involved in operations to defend Ukraine or are reassigned to other military units. In such cases, the suspension of proceedings may continue unjustifiably, even though remote participation would be feasible, ultimately delaying justice.

The draft also lists exhaustive types of evidence that defendants must submit to confirm their participation in defense missions: a combat command or order. However, both documents relate to the military management, and most information in them are state secret under Section 11.3 of the Summary of Information Classified as State Secret. Therefore, there may be significant difficulties with obtaining them by the court.

Therefore, it is advisable to improve the draft law to:

• Suspend court proceedings for defendants who are directly involved in combat operations or in activities necessary to ensure Ukraine’s defense, the safety of the population, and state interests in connection with the Russian Federation’s military aggression, when they are physically located in areas of operation, in temporarily occupied territories, or in zones between Ukrainian defense forces and enemy positions, and are performing combat (special)missions.
• Provide for the possibility to resume court proceedings against defendants who either temporarily or permanently, cease direct involvement in combat or the aforementioned missions under the motion of the prosecutor, including in proceedings that were previously suspended.
• Revise the procedure for confirming that a person conscripted during the special period or serving under a military contract is unable to participate in court proceedings. For example, allow for submission of documents that are not classified as state secrets.

The grounds for suspending the statute of limitations should be expanded, and the moment of its completion should be amended

These changes may also apply to cases under NABU and SAPO jurisdiction. The authors propose that the period during which court proceedings are suspended due to the defendant’s mobilization should not count toward the statute of limitations.

These potential novels would have a positive effect, as they would close one of the most common loopholes used to dismiss cases—expiration of the statute of limitations.

However, the proposed wording could be improved, as corruption cases are not investigated solely by NABU or referred to court exclusively by SAPO. Local courts handle simpler cases, but there are dozens of times more of them. 

For example, according to the State Judicial Administration, in 2024, local courts convicted 2,133 individuals for corruption and related offenses.

In addition, the current criminal law does not distinguish between pre-trial investigation bodies in regulating statutes of limitations. It uses the note to Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to define the list of corruption and corruption-related offenses. This note should therefore be used to set out the grounds for suspending limitation periods.

We also support a comprehensive reform of the statute of limitations. Along with suspending it due to military service in corruption cases, it should also be suspended in cases requiring international legal cooperation. Mutual legal assistance requests can take months or even years, and this should not obstruct the delivery of justice.

In addition to these amendments, it is important to change the moment when the limitation period ends—from when the verdict becomes final to when it is issued by the first-instance court. 

Monitoring of HACC activity has shown that some cases are closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations at the appellate stage. This occurred, for example, in the case regarding UAH 30 million in damages during the construction of Okhmatdyt Hospital in 2013. The first instance of the HACC managed to hear the case within the limitation period, but due to current rules, the period expired before the verdict became final leading to the dismissal of liability for the former head of the state contracting company.

Therefore, it is advisable to improve the draft law to:

• Clarify that the statute of limitations shall be suspended not only in NABU cases but in all criminal proceedings for corruption-related offenses listed in the note to Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
• Add the performance of actions under international legal cooperation as a new ground for suspending the statute of limitations.
• Amend the point at which the statute of limitations ends, from when the verdict enters into force to when it is delivered by the first instance court.

Conclusions

TI Ukraine supports Draft Law No. 13284 and recommends its adoption at first reading. 

However, we believe its final adoption should occur only after it is refined for second reading, incorporating the following recommendations:

• Suspend court proceedings for defendants who are directly involved in combat operations or in activities necessary to ensure Ukraine’s defense, the safety of the population, and state interests in connection with the Russian Federation’s military aggression, when they are physically located in areas of operation, in temporarily occupied territories, or in zones between Ukrainian defense forces and enemy positions, and are performing combat (special)missions.
• Provide for the possibility to resume court proceedings against defendants who either temporarily or permanently, cease direct involvement in combat or the aforementioned missions under the motion of the prosecutor, including in proceedings that were previously suspended.
• Revise the procedure for confirming that a person conscripted during the special period or serving under a military contract is unable to participate in court proceedings. For example, allow for submission of documents that are not classified as state secrets.
• Clarify that the statute of limitations shall be suspended not only in NABU cases but in all criminal proceedings for corruption-related offenses listed in the note to Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
• Add the performance of actions under international legal cooperation as a new ground for suspending the statute of limitations.
• Amend the point at which the statute of limitations ends, from when the verdict enters into force to when it is delivered by the first instance court.

Ukraine needs both a strong army and a fair judiciary. Staffing the Defense Forces is critical to protect the country. However, this must not be used as a tool to evade responsibility by those who may have harmed the state through corruption.