Public Demand for Justice
Lack of capacity of the Ukrainian domestic legal system to ensure effective justice and accountability adversely affects the ability of the national authorities and international partners to satisfy the Ukrainian public’s demand for justice.
This gap is exacerbated by the lack of political will from Ukraine’s political leadership to consider victims’ as well as the general public’s demands for justice as the positions and expertise of the existing legal professional community, and other relevant groups including military veterans.[35]
In September and December 2022, the sociological group “Rating” conducted all Ukrainian public opinion polls, which included, in particular, a number of questions regarding the administration of justice in the aftermath of the war.[36]
The polls revealed that Ukrainians sought immediate justice and accountability: according to the majority of the respondents (75%), trials on war crimes in Ukraine should start as soon as possible, 23% of the respondents believe that it should be done after the end of the war. As opposed to compensation for the damages suffered by the population of the country, punishment of the guilty was highlighted as the immediate priority: 75% of respondents believe that justice regarding war crimes should be based on the fair punishment of war criminals and only 21% believe compensation for the damage should take precedence. At the same time, as demonstrated by the results of the national poll and the survey of professional groups, the respondents prefer legitimate forms of justice guaranteed by the legal system with 55% being against lynching; respondents from the judicial and veteran communities have also demonstrated a high level of expectations regarding trials related to war crimes based on the due process standards.[37] At the same time, the polls demonstrate the majority of respondents noted that existing negative attitudes and prejudices of the society towards the court and law enforcement systems continue to persist during the full-scale invasion. Such attitudes are based on high levels of corruption and distrust of systems in general.[38]
Lack of communication/outreach by the state authorities was noted by 60% of the national polls respondents. The indicators show that a significant part of the population has information about potential international crimes of the Russian Federation, or is directly affected by hostilities, but they do not report them to investigative authorities, in particular, due to lack of information about legal protection tools.
The communication means chosen by the government of Ukraine mainly focus on general information about the situation on the frontlines and the “successful” investigations and prosecutions of Russia’s soldiers rather than providing explanation as to different justice and accountability pathways and ways to report the law enforcement authorities, to what end the protection the can expect from the state authorities.[39]
The interviewed respondents, both judges and veterans, have a sufficient level of understanding of the existing public demand. At the same time, there is awareness of threats that non-implementation, delay or non-compliance with public perceptions of justice can become a significant factor of destabilisation and reputational risks for Ukraine.[40]
In line with these results, the majority of respondents believe that special courts with the participation of domestic and international judges will be the most effective option for ensuring accountability for grave crimes (65% of respondents on average). The same opinion was expressed by some of the judges-respondents during focus groups and in-depth interviews. Another 22% of national poll participants consider international institutions effective, and only 7% consider national courts effective.[41]
The position of professional groups, in particular judges and the veteran community is somewhat different from the general public’s assessments. Thus, the collected opinions and ideas voiced by the judges during focus groups and in-depth interviews demonstrate the lack of a single vision and understanding the possible justice and accountability mechanisms can be used in Ukraine’s situation. Different levels of understanding of the issues at hand pertaining to the standards of due process in international law combined with the overall exhaustion from the decades long judicial reform has resulted in a sceptical perception and attitude towards changes among judges. The dominant conservative assessment of the judicial system by the judges is that it has enough capacity to process all the crimes committed during armed conflict in Ukraine albeit with some support and capacity building. Instead, the interviewed veterans mostly noted the need to use mixed (hybrid) mechanisms for prosecuting persons who committed crimes in the course of the military aggression against Ukraine, whereby the efforts of the domestic authorities will be reinforced alongside by the international investigative, prosecutorial authorities and judges. In their opinion, this will not only ensure a higher level of compliance with the standards of due process, but also provide for an appropriate level of informing the world about the crimes committed by the Russian military.[42]
Lack of communication/outreach by the state authorities was emphasised by 60% of the national polls respondents. The indicators show that a significant part of society, which has information about potential international crimes of the Russian Federation, or is directly affected by hostilities, does not turn to investigative authorities, in particular, due to lack of information about legal protection tools.
The initiated national tv marathon and other communication tools chosen by the government mainly focus on general information and the success of the investigation, without conducting legal and educational work to explain the importance and pathways, algorithms to contacting the law enforcement agencies for the legal protection of victims.
Certain categories of victims remain neglected, in particular, in anti-crisis communication. For example, families of those missing as a result of hostilities, who take a proactive position in searching for loved ones, may face a negative reaction from the authorities. At the same time, experts note that the dissatisfaction and disappointment of the victims can be used by the agents of the aggressor state to destabilise the situation in the country.
