A/HRC/43/CRP.7 appears unlikely that such cases will in fact be pursued, as demonstrated by the lack of progress in cases against detainees simultaneously released on 27 December 2017.60 78. Another concern is that the authorities facilitated breaches of court-ordered obligations imposed on the detainees. OHCHR is aware that, in line with Prosecutors’ requests, courts released 74 people from custody under their personal commitment not to leave their places of residence. By transferring these defendants to territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’, Ukrainian authorities facilitated the violation of this commitment. Should those released appear for trial in the future, they risk being detained again without the possibility of release on bail.61 B. Fair trial rights 79. Between 16 November 2019 and 15 February 2020, 78 verdicts were issued against 84 individuals62 in conflict-related criminal cases. Of these, two defendants were acquitted and 82 were found guilty, including 38 based on plea bargain agreements. Please see the following infographic for an overview of these findings. 80. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented three conflict-related criminal cases which were classified by judges as secret information in the unified court register. 63 OHCHR is concerned about the impact of such classification on the defendants’ right to a public trial (an important safeguard for a fair trial) and on public confidence in the justice system.64 In one emblematic case, where the defendant complained to OHCHR of fair trial violations, the appeal court failed to publish its judgement,65 contrary to the law.66 OHCHR notes that even when the public is excluded from the trial, the judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public.67 81. Undue delays continued to plague criminal proceedings in conflict-related cases. For example, in the case of an SBU officer accused of killing a civilian on 4 March 2017, a panel of judges was assigned to the case in September 2019 and recused themselves in January 2020 on spurious grounds.68 This was the second trial bench to recuse themselves, resulting in an overall delay of two years so far,69 during which time the accused remains in service. The authorities’ failure to ensure a prompt trial violates the rights of the victim’s relatives to an effective remedy and to a trial without undue delay. 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 20 None of the individuals whose trials were pending have been prosecuted in absentia since being released. During bail hearings, the judge should consider the defendant’s compliance with previously imposed bail obligations and may impose pre-trial detention with no possibility of release on bail if previous bail obligations were violated. CPC art. 178 and 183(4). Forty-seven men and 37 women. Criminal proceedings No. 638/1423/18, 644/3991/16-к, 642/3251/18. According to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Access to Judicial Decisions’, the register was established to ensure public access to court decisions. Judgement of the Appeal Court of Kharkiv Region of 18 November 2019 in criminal case 638/1423/18. According to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Access to Judicial Decisions’, e-copies of all court decisions shall be available to the public, except in cases specified by law. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, para. 29, 23 August 2007, CCPR/C/GC/32, available at https://undocs.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/32. The court ruled that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the bail hearing amounted to a disclosure of the records of the pre-trial investigation, and that their awareness of the findings of the pre-trial investigation could affect their impartiality hen considering the merits of the case. Ruling of the Kramatorsk city court of Donetsk region, 13 January 2020, available at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/86881957. OHCHR notes that Ukrainian law does not consider provision of such evidence during bail hearings to jeopardise the impartiality of judges. 69 The case was assigned to the first panel of judges of the Kramatorsk City court in midSeptember 2019. A judge from the panel recused herself on 15 October 2019. The accused was suspended from service by the new panel of judges on 10 February 2020.