A/HRC/45/CRP.9 7. The report raises concerns regarding the right to legal counsel. State-appointed lawyers handling the majority of conflict-related criminal cases often provided poor quality services, and did not act in the best interests of their clients. In addition, in 2017 and 2018, OHCHR documented eight cases where private lawyers dealing with conflict-related cases were attacked because of their professional activity. 8. OHCHR is concerned about interference with the independence of judges dealing with conflict-related cases, which were most frequent in 2017 and 2018. In some of these cases, prosecutors pressured judges by opening criminal investigations against those who issued rulings in favour of defendants, while in others, judges were harassed by members of extreme right-wing and other groups, in an attempt to coerce them to adopt certain decisions. Police present often failed to prevent or stop these acts, or afterwards, to effectively investigate them. 9. Throughout the reporting period, access to judicial remedies for human rights violations perpetrated during the prosecution of conflict-related crimes was lacking. Courts often failed to address allegations of torture, ill-treatment and unlawful arrest raised by defendants. 10. OHCHR is concerned by credible allegations depicting the widespread use of forced confessions in conflict-related cases documented between 2014 and 2020. Based on information collected, in at least 55 cases, apprehended individuals were forced to incriminate themselves on camera. OHCHR is further concerned that convictions based on plea bargains and admissions of guilt may be the result of duress stemming from the combination of the aforementioned human rights violations, almost automatic pre-trial detention during protracted trials, poor quality of legal assistance provided by the stateappointed lawyers and the failure of the authorities to remedy these violations. As a matter of practice, judges accepted plea bargains without examining their circumstances or the merits of the case, raising the risk of misuse by the prosecution to secure convictions in the absence of sufficient evidence. 11. Contrary to international human rights standards, Ukrainian legislation governing in absentia proceedings does not envisage the right of a convicted person to retrial after the verdict has been delivered, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to present a defence. In addition, host States may refer to this procedural shortcoming as grounds for refusing requests for extradition of persons convicted in absentia, thus hampering the enforcement of such verdicts and undermining accountability efforts and the right to a remedy for victims. 12. In territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, OHCHR found that both the legal framework and practice applied did not respect the basic elements of fair trial and related human rights of individuals ‘accused’ of conflict-related ‘crimes’.6 Most notably, the use of incommunicado detention, without any independent oversight, for up to several months before an ‘investigation’ formally commences denies individuals of the protection they are entitled to in criminal proceedings. In tandem with the lack of access by independent human rights monitors, including OHCHR, to places of detention in this territory, this raises concerns regarding the use of torture and ill-treatment to secure confessions from detainees. 13. OHCHR further observed that ‘trials’ in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’ were marked by the lack of access to a lawyer of one’s choice, closed ‘hearings’ and lack of independence and impartiality of ‘judges’. OHCHR is concerned that lawyers and lawyers’ associations in the territory lack independence and do not provide an effective defence to the ‘accused’. Finally, OHCHR is concerned by the operation of ‘military courts’ because they processed cases of civilians and held closed ‘hearings’. All of these violations raise concerns as to the overall fairness of these ‘proceedings’. 6 For the purposes of the report’s sections describing fair trial rights violations in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, conflict-related ‘crimes’ mean ‘prosecution’ of individuals believed to be affiliated with Ukrainian government or having pro-Ukrainian views. ‘Charges’ against such individuals included espionage, diversion, high treason, terrorism, and illegal possession of weapons. 3