The true scale of the problem is difficult to overestimate. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, as of early 2026 there were 1,401 criminal proceedings concerning torture pending, of which 704 were opened in 2025 alone (Hlavkom, 2026). At the same time, only a small fraction of cases reach trial: over the entire period from 2022 to 2025, suspicion notices were issued to 56–67 persons per year, while the number of indictments sent to court was significantly lower (Yagunov, 2026). These figures, taken on their own, attest to a systemic crisis in the criminal prosecution of torture.

The onset of the full-scale invasion in 2022 caused a sharp statistical drop in registered crimes of this category — to 68 cases — not because torture had diminished, but because a large share of incidents occurred in occupied or frontline territories where any documentation was virtually impossible (Yagunov, 2026). In subsequent years — 2023–2025 — figures recovered to 94–124 cases per year, consistent with the pre-war baseline, yet far below the actual number of incidents.

The true systemic problem lies not only in the acts of torture themselves, but in the algorithmic inefficiency of their prosecution. The ECtHR, in the case of Afanasyev v. Ukraine, had already established that Ukraine not only applies torture but effectively fails to punish it (Hlavkom, 2026). That verdict has not become obsolete — it is confirmed annually by new scandals, fragile convictions, and the impunity of uniformed torturers.

This review covers the most prominent specific cases in three categories: torture in National Police units, torture in the penitentiary system, and torture in Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centres (TRC/SSC). Each case is analysed according to a uniform scheme: date and circumstances of the event, description of documented acts, response by authorities and society, suspicion notices issued, and the fate of the case in court.

SECTION I. TORTURE IN NATIONAL POLICE UNITS

The Kaharlik Case: Rape and Torture at a Police Station (2020–2026)

Although the underlying events occurred in May 2020, the Kaharlik police officers’ case became a litmus test for the state of police reform precisely during our study period — owing to its judicial resolution in 2023–2026.

Description of events. In May 2020, at the Kaharlik District Police Department of Kyiv Oblast, two officers — an investigator and the head of the criminal police sector — detained a woman suspected of involvement in a crime. Over an extended period they inflicted grievous bodily harm upon her, applied electric current, handcuffed her to a radiator in the corridor, transported her outside the city in the boot of a car, and raped her. In September–October of the same year, male detainees who had been subjected to torture stated that investigators had also transported them outside the city in car boots and tortured them with electric shocks to extract confessions of theft (LB.ua, 2026; NV, 2026).

The public outcry was unprecedented. The case became a symbol of post-Soviet police violence within the ‘reformed’ police service. The Office of the Prosecutor General placed the case under direct supervision. Both officers were dismissed and taken into custody.

On 24 May 2023 the Kaharlik District Court delivered a guilty verdict: both defendants were sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment under a combination of charges — torture (Art. 127), unlawful deprivation of liberty (Art. 146-1), and rape (Art. 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) (Hlavkom, 2023). In November 2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the sentence (OBOZ.UA, 2024). On 19 February 2026 the Supreme Court of Ukraine definitively confirmed the conviction, drawing a line under 5.5 years of the victim’s judicial struggle for her rights (NV, 2026; LB.ua, 2026). The case became one of the rare examples of torture by police officers being prosecuted to a final, enforceable guilty verdict.

Torture at a Kharkiv Police Station: Sexual Violence to Obtain a Confession

Although this case came to public attention in 2021, its investigative and procedural context spans the study period.

A deputy head of one of Kharkiv’s police divisions detained a man suspected of murder and brought him to the station. For over an hour, officers struck the detainee on the head with a plastic water bottle. The deputy chief then put on rubber gloves and applied sexual violence — squeezing and pulling the victim’s genitals. Unable to endure the torture, the man confessed to killing his acquaintance. The court remanded him in custody, but he secured his release from the pre-trial detention facility and declared his innocence (SBI, 2021).

The SBI issued a suspicion notice to the deputy head of the police division for torture involving sexual violence. The case attracted wide attention owing to the striking resemblance of the ‘interrogation’ methods to Soviet-era militia practices.

Vinnytsia: Torture to the Point of Clinical Death over Suspected Petty Theft (September 2023 – February 2026)

This case is one of the most thoroughly documented examples of police violence in our study period, encompassing all stages — from the crime to the judicial proceedings.

In September 2023, three Vinnytsia police officers were checking information concerning a man’s possible involvement in the theft of a bag containing documents and bank cards. Late at night they brought him to a duty room and commenced what amounted to the ‘beating out of a confession.’ Throughout the night, officers delivered multiple blows with fists and a rubber baton, mostly to the abdomen. The beatings were accompanied by systematic psychological pressure aimed at breaking the person’s will and forcing him to confess. As a result of the torture, the victim sustained multiple severe injuries to internal organs, suffered intra-abdominal haemorrhage, and underwent clinical death — cardiac arrest on the operating table. His spleen was removed (SBI, 2026; TSN, 2026).

Information about the incident only became public in January 2026 — more than two years after the crime itself — when the SBI and the Office of the Prosecutor General released details of the case.

In January 2026, three police officers were served with suspicion notices for torture committed by a group of persons involving a state official, and for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. Two suspects were placed under house arrest; regarding the third, who had already left the police service, the question of issuing a suspicion notice was being resolved. In February 2026 the case was referred to court (OGP, 2026; Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, 2026). A key concern: between the act of torture (September 2023) and the issuing of suspicion notices (January 2026) more than two years elapsed. During this time the victim remained without official victim status in a torture case.

SECTION II. TORTURE IN THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM

Findings of the Ombudsman’s Office: Special Report 2024

On 2 May 2024 the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights of Ukraine published a Special Report ‘On the State of Affairs Regarding the Prevention in Ukraine of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment in 2023’ (Ombudsman, 2024). The document recorded alarming trends that characterised the penitentiary system during the period of martial law.

As of 31 December 2023, 44,024 persons were held in 148 penal institutions and pre-trial detention facilities, compared with 42,726 in 2022. In parallel, 29 penal institutions located in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts remain non-operational (Ombudsman, 2024).

The report documented numerous acts of violence by staff against convicted persons and persons held in custody: beatings with hands, feet, and rubber batons; compulsion to perform physical exercise to the point of exhaustion; threats of sexual violence. Particular concern was raised by the situation of persons sentenced to life imprisonment, who are confined to their cells for 23 hours a day and spend their one-hour exercise period in a cramped cubicle (Focus, 2026; Ombudsman, 2024).

According to data from the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences, in 2024–2025 only isolated criminal proceedings under Part 3 of Article 127 of the Criminal Code were opened against institutional staff — 1 in 2024 and a few in 2025 (Pravo.Ua, 2026). This statistical picture is strikingly understated relative to the actual situation, attesting to systemic latency of violence in penitentiary facilities.

ECtHR Judgment: Chornodubravskyy and Others v. Ukraine (2026)

In 2026 the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in the case of Chornodubravskyy and Others v. Ukraine concerning 12 applicants. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention owing to cell overcrowding, absence of sanitary conditions, lack of access to showers and fresh air in Ukrainian pre-trial detention facilities (Pravo.Ua, 2026). This judgment continues a long series of analogous ECtHR verdicts, including the case of Sukachov v. Ukraine (2020), and confirms the systemic nature of violations in the domestic penitentiary system.

Statistical Overview (2022–2026)

Aggregating available data, as of early 2026 courts had delivered only 20 final convictions in cases of torture by law enforcement officers — across the entire observation period (Hlavkom, 2026). Police officers feature most frequently in such proceedings, accounting for approximately three-quarters of all suspicion notices. Penitentiary staff rank second, accounting for at least 36 cases in 2025 (Hlavkom, 2026). Meanwhile, researchers note that registered data for 2022–2025 are significantly understated, since they cover only incidents that occurred on government-controlled territory where investigation is possible (Yagunov, 2026). The actual number of torture incidents — in police stations, prisons, and especially in TRC facilities — remains unknown.

SECTION III. TORTURE IN TERRITORIAL RECRUITMENT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT CENTRES (TRC/SSC)

Systemic Violence as a ‘New Front’: The General Picture, 2023–2026

With the onset of large-scale mobilisation in 2023, a new wave of scandals connected to violence inside TRC/SSC facilities came to public attention. The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights recorded that in 2022–2023 more than 500 applications were received from citizens regarding rights violations during mobilisation. In 2024 this number increased sixfold — to 3,312 complaints — and in 2025 it reached 6,127 applications (UNIAN, 2026). In total, over 2022–2025 the Ombudsman received nearly 12,000 complaints about TRC actions.

Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets described mobilisation in 2025 as the ‘most acute issue’ his office had faced, emphasising that ‘Ukrainian citizens must feel protected within TRC/SSC premises, not the opposite’ (RBK-Ukraine, 2026). The SBI characterised combating torture in TRCs as one of its ‘priority areas,’ noting: ‘Such actions are inadmissible, especially under martial law, and undermine public trust in state institutions’ (SBI, 2026).

Ternopil: Video Recording of the Beating of Conscripts at a TRC (October 2023 – May 2026)

On 7–8 October 2023 footage of the beating of conscripts — recorded the previous day — circulated online. Criminal proceedings were opened the following day. A verdict was delivered in October 2026 (Zaxid.net, 2026; Radio Svoboda, 2023).

On the evening of 6 October 2023, a grenadier soldier from the TRC security section, together with other service personnel, stopped a local resident in central Ternopil for a documents check. The man was brought to the TRC. In footage covertly recorded and subsequently published on social media, two servicemen are seen brutally beating two men lying on beds; pleas not to be beaten are audible. One victim sustained medium-severity bodily injuries; the other sustained minor injuries (SBI, 2024; NV, 2024).

The video provoked wide public reaction. Ombudsman Lubinets personally announced an inspection, writing on Facebook: ‘Ternopil. I saw footage from the media and social networks showing the beating of conscripts. This must not happen!’ (Radio Svoboda, 2023). The Ternopil Specialised Prosecution in the Defence Sphere of the Western Region opened criminal proceedings. On 13 October 2023 a court imposed night-time house arrest on two suspects — the section commander and the grenadier soldier.

In early 2024 the accused returned to work at the TRC pending the conclusion of the trial. The case was substantially delayed, and several witnesses had left the country. On 20 May 2026 the Ternopil City-District Court delivered its verdict: both defendants pleaded guilty and received 1-year suspended sentences and a fine of UAH 850. In determining the sentence the court took into account the defendants’ combat record, the presence of children, their sincere remorse, and documented donations of UAH 50,000 each to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Zaxid.net, 2026). This verdict became a symbol of impunity in cases of violence at TRCs: the minimal punishment for a documented and publicly circulated brutal beating proved so disproportionate to the social harm caused that the case triggered a fresh debate on judicial independence in cases against members of the security forces.

Verkhovyna TRC (Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast): Systemic Torture and Extortion (November 2025 – May 2026)

Following verification of complaints from citizens and members of parliament regarding beatings, torture, and extortion of money at one of the Prykarpattia TRCs, the SBI launched an investigation. It established that a lieutenant-colonel, deputy head of the Verkhovyna District TRC/SSC, had systematically humiliated and beaten conscripts. One victim — a service member — publicly spoke out about the violence. The investigation established that at least four subordinates of the lieutenant-colonel were involved in the beatings (Suspilne Ivano-Frankivsk, 2026). On 21 November 2025 the lieutenant-colonel was detained and remanded in custody. The SBI noted that after media publications and official appeals, an increasing number of victims began contacting law enforcement. In January 2026 another subordinate of the lieutenant-colonel — a serviceman from the security platoon involved in the beatings — was detained. The actions of the commander and three subordinates were classified as torture committed by a state official. The court remanded all persons charged in custody without the right to bail. On 18 May 2026 the SBI referred the indictment to court (Podrobnosti, 2026; Leopolis News, 2026). On 29 May 2026 a preparatory hearing took place at which the second victim appeared for the first time; the court granted an application for panel adjudication (Pravda.If.Ua, 2026).

Ternopil (Second Episode): Torture at a TRC with Fluoroscopy and Organ Removal (2025–2026)

The SBI conducted an inspection in response to citizens’ complaints of beatings, torture, and extortion of money at one of the district TRCs. At least two criminal episodes were established. In the first, the victim was beaten for refusing to undergo a fluoroscopic examination: initially in the corridor of a hospital, then on TRC premises. In the second, servicemen forcibly detained a man; the commander personally delivered blows; tear gas was deployed; the victim lay on a concrete floor. As a result of the injuries sustained, he underwent complex surgery involving the removal of one of his organs (Leopolis News, 2026; Focus, 2026). Suspects were served with suspicion notices in November 2025 and January 2026. Following media publications, the number of victims approaching law enforcement increased.

Kharkiv TRC: Torture and Shooting, Extortion of Money (April 2026)

The SBI issued suspicion notices to a group of servicemen from one of Kharkiv’s district TRCs, as well as to servicemen from other units who had acted in concert. Among those charged was a major of the TRC who held a commanding position and organised the actions of the accomplices. According to the investigation, the group extorted money from individuals and, in cases of refusal, resorted to violence and threats. Shooting episodes were also recorded in the case. Suspicion notices were issued for torture committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons (SBI, 2026; Hlavkom, 2026). The pre-trial investigation was ongoing, with prosecutorial supervision exercised by the Kharkiv Specialised Prosecution in the Defence Sphere of the Eastern Region.

Mykolaiv: TRC Officer Suspected of Beatings (January 2026)

On 8 January 2026 the SBI issued a suspicion notice to an officer of one of Mykolaiv’s district TRCs for beating and humiliating conscripts (Hlavkom, 2026). The SBI reiterated that ‘combating torture is one of the Bureau’s priority areas’ and that such actions ‘undermine public trust in state institutions’ (SBI, 2026).

Kyiv Oblast: TRC Officer for Beating and Humiliation (February 2026)

On 3 February 2026 the SBI detained and served a suspicion notice on the head of the civil-military cooperation support group of one of the Kyiv Oblast district TRCs for beating and systematic humiliation of conscripts (SBI, 2026). The case demonstrates that violence at TRCs is not a local anomaly but a widespread practice across different regions of the country.

Rivne TRC: Beating with a Bat and Corruption (May 2025)

In May 2025 the SBI issued additional suspicion notices to the former head of the Rivne District TRC. Initially criminal proceedings had been opened against him for beating one of his subordinates with a bat. During a search, narcotics were discovered. A further charge concerned assisting persons in evading mobilisation: ‘The official created conditions enabling certain conscripts to avoid mobilisation’ (ArmyInform, 2025). This case illustrates the typical ‘compounded corruption’ of TRCs: violence combined with corrupt schemes to evade service.

Dnipro: Beating at TRC, Video on Telegram (August 2025)

On 8 August 2025 a Telegram channel published footage apparently showing the beating of a former serviceman by Dnipro TRC employees. The Dnipro Specialised Prosecution in the Defence Sphere immediately registered criminal proceedings (Donbas Patriot, 2025). The case is instructive: footage in public messaging applications became the primary ‘trigger’ for opening proceedings.

SECTION IV. STATISTICAL DIMENSIONS AND SYSTEMIC CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative Picture, 2022–2025

According to official data of the Office of the Prosecutor General as of early 2026 (Hlavkom, 2026), the total number of criminal proceedings regarding torture currently pending is 1,401, of which 704 were opened during 2025. The number of persons served with suspicion notices was 56 in 2022 and 67 in 2025; 41 indictments were referred to court in 2025. The total number of final guilty verdicts over the entire study period is 20. These indicators demonstrate an extremely low rate of criminal prosecution effectiveness: of more than 1,400 proceedings opened, only 20 resulted in a final conviction — a ‘verdict-to-proceeding’ conversion rate of less than 1.5%.

Structural Causes of Impunity

Analysis of the documented cases reveals several systemic factors that perpetuate the impunity of torture in Ukraine even in conditions of prolonged human rights advocacy and declared reforms.

First, protracted investigations. In the Vinnytsia case, more than two years elapsed between the act (September 2023) and the suspicion notice (January 2026). In the Ternopil TRC case, between the video (October 2023) and the verdict (May 2026) — almost three years. Procedural delay exhausts victims and increases the risk of evidence loss.

Second, disproportionate penalties. The verdict in the Ternopil TRC case (a 1-year suspended sentence and a UAH 850 fine for a documented and filmed brutal beating) plainly demonstrates that courts do not always adequately assess the social danger of torture committed by state officials.

Third, fear and latency. The Ombudsman’s Office, the SBI, and independent researchers unanimously indicate that the actual number of torture incidents is many times higher than the registered figure. Victims fear repeated persecution, lack confidence in the system’s effectiveness, and under conditions of martial law may find themselves in a state of dependency on the very structures that abused them (Yagunov, 2026).

Fourth, institutional loyalty. The return of the accused in the Ternopil TRC case to their workplaces before the verdict became enforceable, justification on circumstantial grounds, and similar practices — all attest to the fact that certain institutions continue to protect ‘their own’ and resist external oversight.

Fifth, the systemic character of violence at TRCs. The increase in complaints from 500 in 2022–2023 to 6,127 in 2025 (UNIAN, 2026) signifies not only a greater willingness of people to complain, but also a genuine spread of violent practices in the context of large-scale mobilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

This documentary review of the most prominent cases from 2022–2026 paints a grim picture of systemic violence and corporate impunity within Ukraine’s key security institutions. The police, the penitentiary service, and the TRCs — three separate agencies with no organisational connection — demonstrate identical patterns of behaviour: the application of physical pain to obtain a desired result (confessions, compliance, money); minimisation of the risk of accountability; and loyalty of leadership towards subordinate torturers.

The reform of the SBI that is under way and the increased activity of the defence-sphere prosecution are positive signals. However, without overcoming systemic impunity — through strengthening judicial independence, legislative reinforcement of the inevitability of punishment for torture, and genuine functional parliamentary and public oversight — any reforms will remain cosmetic.

Ukraine has assumed obligations before the Council of Europe, the ECtHR, and, potentially, towards its future EU membership. Fulfilment of those obligations requires not merely a statistical increase in the number of suspicion notices, but the genuine punishment of torturers — irrespective of their rank and institutional affiliation.

REFERENCES

20 Khvylyin Vinnytsia. (2026, April 7). Clinical death after interrogation: how the case is progressing against Vinnytsia police officers who tortured a suspect [in Ukrainian]. https://vn.20minut.ua/Kryminal/klinichna-smert-pislya-dopitu-yak-yde-sprava-schodo-politseyskih-yaki–11992753.html

ArmyInform. (2025, May 8). The former TRC commander who beat a subordinate with a bat was served with another suspicion notice — SBI [in Ukrainian]. https://armyinform.com.ua/2025/05/08/kolyshnomu-nachalnyku-tczk-yakyj-byv-bytoyu-pidleglogo-povidomyly-pro-shhe-odnu-pidozru-dbr/

Donbas Patriot. (2025, August 12). Possible beating of former serviceman by TRC employees in Dnipro: criminal proceedings opened [in Ukrainian]. https://donpatriot.news/mozhlyve-pobyttya-kolyshnogo-vijskovosluzhbovczya-praczivnykamy-tczk-u-dnipri-rozpochato-kryminalne-provadzhennya

Focus. (2026, January 7). Mobilisation in Ukraine: TRC servicemen tortured a man for refusing a fluoroscopy [in Ukrainian]. https://focus.ua/uk/voennye-novosti/739562

Hlavkom. (2023, May 24). Rape in Kaharlik: court handed down verdict against former police officers [in Ukrainian]. https://glavcom.ua/kyiv/news/zhvaltuvannja-u-kaharliku-sud-vinis-virok-ekspolitsejskim–929569.html

Hlavkom. (2026, April 22). Case of torture and shooting in Kharkiv: TRC employees charged with suspicion [in Ukrainian]. https://glavcom.ua/country/criminal/sprava-pro-katuvannja-i-striljaninu-v-kharkovi-pratsivniki-ttsk-otrimali-pidozru-1115283.html

Hlavkom. (2026, March 6). Cases of torture by law enforcement officers: the Prosecutor General’s Office published statistics [in Ukrainian]. https://glavcom.ua/country/criminal/spravi-pro-katuvannja-pravookhorontsjami-ofis-henprokurora-opriljudniv-statistiku-1106707.html

Informator Ivano-Frankivsk. (2026, May 18). Head of one of the district TRCs in Frankivsk region and three subordinates to stand trial [in Ukrainian]. https://if.informator.ua/2026/05/18/sudytymut-kerivnyka-odnogo-iz-rajonnyh-tczk-frankivshhyny-ta-troh-jogo-pidleglyh

LB.ua. (2026, April 6). Former head of prison in Luhansk region who tortured Ukrainian POWs served with suspicion notice [in Ukrainian]. https://lb.ua/society/2026/04/06/731212_povidomleno_pro_pidozru.html

LB.ua. (2026, February 19). Supreme Court upheld verdict against former police officers in the Kaharlik torture and rape case [in Ukrainian]. https://lb.ua/society/2026/02/19/723268_verhovniy_sud_zalishiv_sili.html

Leopolis News. (2026, May 18). TRC commander and three servicemen to stand trial in Prykarpattia for torturing conscripts [in Ukrainian]. https://leopolis.news/na-prykarpatti-sudytymut-kerivnyka-tczk-ta-troh-vijskovyh-za-katuvannya-mobilizovanyh/

NV (New Voice of Ukraine). (2026, February 19). Supreme Court draws a line under the Kaharlik police case [in Ukrainian]. https://nv.ua/ukr/ukraine/events/verhovniy-sud-postaviv-krapku-v-spravi-ekspoliciyantiv-yaki-zgvaltuvali-zhinku-v-kagarliku-50585359.html

NV (New Voice of Ukraine). (2024, November 4). The torture and rape case at Kaharlik Police Station — court dismissed appeal by former officers [in Ukrainian]. https://incident.obozrevatel.com/ukr/crime/sud-vidhiliv-apelyatsiyu-kolishnih-politsejskih

Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights of Ukraine (Ombudsman). (2024, May 2). Special report on the state of affairs regarding the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment in Ukraine in 2023 [in Ukrainian]. https://www.yagunov.in.ua/ombuds-2024/ [Summary by Yagunov, D.]

Podrobnosti. (2026, May 18). TRC employees to stand trial in Prykarpattia for beating and torture [in Ukrainian]. https://podrobnosti.ua/2515825-na-prikarpatt-suditimut-pratsvnikv-ttsk-cherez-pobittja-ta-katuvannja.html

PRAVDA.IF.UA. (2026, May 29). The torture case at Verkhovyna TRC: how the hearing proceeded [in Ukrainian]. https://pravda.if.ua/sprava-pro-katuvannya-u-verhovynsiokomu-tczk-yak-prohodyv-sud/

PRAVO.UA. (2026, February 23). Bohatyr, V. The Ukrainian penitentiary system: between statistics and the standards of the European Convention [in Ukrainian]. https://pravo.ua/ukrainska-penitentsiarna-systema-mizh-statystykoiu-i-standartamy-ievropeiskoi-konventsii-bloh-volodymyra-bohatyria

Radio Svoboda. (2023, October 9). Criminal proceedings opened over beating of conscripts at Ternopil TRC — Prosecutor General’s Office [in Ukrainian]. https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-ternopil-tck-pobyttia-mobilizovanykh/32628230.html

RBK-Ukraine. (2026). Lubinets stated that complaints about mobilisation violations increased 333-fold [in Ukrainian]. https://www.rbc.ua/rus/news/skargi-porushennya-mobilizatsiyi-zrosli-333-1778661505.html

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2021, September 30). SBI suspects Kharkiv police official who perversely tortured a man at a police station [in Ukrainian]. https://dbr.gov.ua/news/dbr-pidozryue-posadovcya-harkivskoi-policii-yakij-iz-zbochennyam-katuvav-cholovika-u-viddilenni

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2024, January 8). SBI referred to court the case of torture of men at the Ternopil TRC [in Ukrainian]. https://dbr.gov.ua/news/

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2026, April 22). SBI announced suspicion in the case of torture and shooting in Kharkiv involving TRC servicemen [in Ukrainian]. https://dbr.gov.ua/news/katuvannya-ta-strilyanina-u-harkovi-za-uchasti-vijskovosluzhbovciv-tck

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2026, February 3). SBI charged a district TRC officer in Kyiv region for beating and humiliating conscripts [in Ukrainian]. https://dbr.gov.ua/news/dbr-povidomilo-pro-pidozru-oficeru-rajonnogo-tck-kiivshhini-za-pobittya-ta-prinizhennya-vijskovozobovyazanih

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2026, January 26). SBI exposed Vinnytsia police officers: torture and clinical death [in Ukrainian]. https://www.myvin.com.ua/news/45433

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2026, January 7). Mobilisation in Ukraine: TRC servicemen tortured a man for refusing a fluoroscopy [in Ukrainian]. https://focus.ua/uk/voennye-novosti/739562

State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). (2026, January 8). SBI charged TRC officer in Mykolaiv with beating of conscripts [in Ukrainian]. https://glavcom.ua/country/incidents/dbr-oholosilo-pidozru-ofitseru-ttsk-u-mikolajevi-za-pobittja-vijskovozobovjazanikh-1097025.html

Suspilne Dnipro (Public Broadcasting). (2026, March 18). TRC forced conscription in Dnipro: what the police bodycam video revealed [in Ukrainian]. https://suspilne.media/dnipro/1257444

Suspilne Ivano-Frankivsk (Public Broadcasting). (2026, April 2). Lt.-Colonel Chornei of Verkhovyna TRC, suspected of torture, kept in custody [in Ukrainian]. https://suspilne.media/ivano-frankivsk/1255284

Suspilne Ivano-Frankivsk (Public Broadcasting). (2026, January 7). Torture at TRC in Frankivsk region: SBI detained another suspect [in Ukrainian]. https://suspilne.media/ivano-frankivsk/1207794

TSN. (2026, January 26). In Vinnytsia three law enforcement officers beat a theft suspect during interrogation, causing clinical death [in Ukrainian]. https://tsn.ua/ukrayina/u-vinnytsi-pravookhorontsi-pid-chas-dopytu-dovely-pidozriuvanoho-do-klinichnoyi-smerti-3008084.html

UNIAN. (2026). The Ombudsman’s Office received almost 12,000 complaints about TRC actions during mobilisation in Ukraine [in Ukrainian]. https://www.unian.ua/society/mobilizaciya-v-ukrajini-stalo-vidomo-skilki-skarg-podali-ukrajinci-na-diji-tck-13378455.html

Yagunov, D. (2026, January 25). The paradox of war: the effectiveness of criminal prosecution for torture in Ukraine (2013–2025) [in Ukrainian]. https://www.yagunov.in.ua/paradox-prosecution-torture/

Zaxid.net. (2026, May). Two servicemen from Ternopil received a suspended sentence and a fine for brutally beating conscripts [in Ukrainian]. https://zaxid.net/za_zhorstoke_pobittya_mobilizovanih_dvoye_viyskovih_z_ternopolya_otrimali_ispitoviy_termin_i_shtraf_n1637832

Active digitalisation, the advancement of AI and recent geopolitical dynamics in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have intensified the issue of crime-related hybrid threats and the appropriate legal responses [1; 9; 12].

EU states are increasingly facing forms of criminality that are taking on hybrid patterns: from the smuggling of conscripts and weapons triggered by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, to interference in domestic political and economic processes through disinformation campaigns and illicit financial flows. The escalation of hybrid threats serves as a catalyst for legal transformation within the EU, given the public demand for security (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Seventh Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Security Union Strategy and Annex, COM (2024)). However, the imperative of security, which requires flexibility and rapid adaptation, often conflicts with the law, traditionally focused on stability, consistency and proceduralism.

In response to the growing threats, states continually seek a balance between repressive and preventive countermeasures commensurate with the danger dimension. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable lag in social and legal control over organised crime, particularly considering its trends of transnationalisation. Governments are constrained by regulatory, linguistic, and jurisdictional barriers, the temporality of law, and diplomatic procedures. Criminals, as a rule, do not face such obstacles and actively exploit legal gaps. Under these circumstances, states tend to use security instruments that deviate from the classical approaches to counteraction based on principles of the rule of law more often.

The prioritisation of security facilitates the emergence of the “rule of security”, which can be defined as a legal paradigm in which security becomes the primary normative axis, displacing or marginalising traditional rule of law principles, particularly in response to non-traditional (hybrid) criminal threats. The “rule of security” gives rise to the ambivalence of security: as a legal category, security can both guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens and restrict them under the pretext of ensuring public order, safeguarding national security or protecting state interests. The issue reflects a broader trend of securitisation in law, which, without critical reflection, risks undermining the foundation of legal legitimacy of crime counteraction.

The phenomenon of securitisation has received considerable attention in political and social sciences [3; 13; 14; 15], including reasonable criticism [2; 11], however, its legal implications in the field of crime prevention remain insufficiently explored.

The concept of the “rule of security” has not yet been systematically doctrinally elaborated in legal studies, although practices in the criminal justice sphere aligned with it are becoming increasingly common.

In particular, numerous contemporary regulatory changes are driven by the implementation of advanced technical security measures. Modern artificial intelligence systems, capable of analysing vast amounts of data, enable the prediction of crime probability in specific regions or based on particular characteristics. Consequently, the paradigm of crime control is shifting: law enforcement is increasingly taking on the nature of predictive control, which in turn raises concerns about a potential erosion of the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, international and regional standards, such as the UNTOC and the ECHR, coexist with national regulatory systems that may differ significantly in their strategies for balancing security and fundamental rights. In some jurisdictions, the boundaries between law, legal exceptions and arbitrariness are becoming increasingly blurred in the context of tackling serious crime.

Furthermore, there is a growing asymmetry in adherence to the rule of law and the effectiveness of security measures across different legal regimes, indicating the transition of emergent regimes to a state of regularity by the institutionalisation of emergency powers. The national margin of appreciation permitted under Article 15 of the ECHR (derogation in time of emergency) should be carefully monitored and framed to avoid abuse of the “rule of security”.

Among others, three areas (though not exclusively) should be highlighted, which illustrate the tension between the need to ensure security and the need to uphold the rule of law.

Firstly, given the digital transformation of organised crime [6; 7] and associated hybrid threats (the use of the dark web for trafficking in drugs, weapons and human organs, the use of crypto-platforms to evade economic sanctions, etc.), a shift in the battlefield towards the cyber space is observed. An increase in security pressure in the cyber domain is anticipated, posing risks to confidentiality, privacy and the protection of personal data.

Secondly, in the geopolitical dimension, there is a growing use of organised crime by certain states to achieve foreign and domestic policy objectives (North Korea, Iran, Russia) or for broader ideological objectives such as international terrorism.  State-organised crime [5] creates a peculiar conflict of interest or paradox, where the very institutions tasked with implementing international standards to combat organised crime are themselves part of the problem. Some studies point to a link between authoritarian processes and the growing risk of the abuse of international legal assistance institutions to persecute political opponents [10]. In effect, this constitutes a non-violent undermining of the rule of law from within.

Thirdly, legal measures to combat organised crime in conflict and post-conflict environments are manifestations of crisis management. In conflict-affected jurisdictions, emergency regimes such as martial law are often introduced, significantly restricting constitutional rights and expanding the discretion of security forces. Legislation to combat crime is adopted ‘in the heat of the moment’ or retrospectively without proper legal scrutiny. In post-conflict contexts, organised crime is closely intertwined with political structures, corruption networks and the shadow economy, rendering them even more fragile. Instead of effective reconstruction and the expected rule of law, what occurs is the ‘criminalisation of peace’ [4]. Weakened institutions and high levels of corruption create a security vacuum. In response, risks of the ‘securitisation of peace’ are mounting.

Combating serious and organised crime has transcended the traditional scope of criminal justice, becoming a key issue for safeguarding democratic and legal values. In this regard, it is necessary to reevaluate the extent to which contemporary legal mechanisms for responding to organised crime comply with the requirements of the rule of law, to examine the challenges that the “rule of security” poses to democratic institutions, and to consider what the legal ecosystem of security should look like in response to crime-related hybrid threats.

These developments reflect the growing need for a new legal architecture capable of functioning in conditions of non-linear change and “unstable normality”.  They also address the need of a model of adaptive, hybrid threat-resilient legal system that relies on institutional flexibility and transparency, maintaining its democratic nature even under the pressure of exceptional circumstances.

References:

Arkan, Z. (2025). European security and hybrid threats: A narrative in the making. Springer International Publishing.

Balzacq, T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations, 11, 2, 171-201.

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.

Cockayne, J. (2013). Chasing shadows: Strategic responses to organised crime in conflict-affected situations (Oslo Forum Papers No. 2). Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue & United Nations University. https://www.hdcentre.org/publications/chasing-shadows/

Decoeur, H. (2018). The phenomenon of state organized crime. In Confronting the shadow state: An international law perspective on state organized crime (online ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198823933.003.0002

Di Nicola, A. (2022). Towards digital organized crime and digital sociology of organized crime. Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-022-09457-y

Europol. (2024). Internet organised crime threat assessment (IOCTA) 2024. Publications Office of the European Union.

Europol. (2025). European Union serious and organised crime threat assessment – The changing DNA of serious and organised crime. Publications Office of the European Union.

Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era (3rd ed.). Polity Press.

Meacham, S. (2022). Weaponizing the police: Interpol as a tool of authoritarianism. Harvard International Review. https://hir.harvard.edu/weaponizing-the-police-authoritarian-abuse-of-interpol/

McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 4, 563-587.

Racoveanu, C. (2024). Artificial intelligence – A double-edged sword. Organized crime’s AI vs law enforcement’s AI. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 18(1), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2024-0044

Sperling, J. & Webber, M. (2018). The European Union: Security Governance and Collective Securitization. West European Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510193

Taureck, R. (2006). Securitization theory and securitization studies. European Journal of International Relations, 9(1), 53–61.

Wæver, O. (2007). Securitization and desecuritization. International Security, 3, 66–98.

Tetiana Melnychuk is an Associate Professor at the Department of Criminal Procedure, National University “Odesa Law Academy” (Ukraine), holding a PhD in Law. Her academic and research interests focus on criminal procedural law. She is currently a Visiting Researcher at the University of Osnabrück (Germany), where she pursues comparative legal research in the field of criminal justice.

According to investigators, the scheme operated systematically. Owners of so-called “porn offices” – premises used for the illegal production and distribution of erotic and pornographic content through internet platforms – paid police commanders 20,000 US dollars per month. The intermediary retained an additional 5,000 dollars. In exchange, the officials undertook not to take any enforcement action, not to document violations, and to provide advance warning of inspections.

At least several documented episodes of money transfers were established: 45,000 dollars in February 2026, 25,000 dollars in April, and a further 25,000 dollars in May – at the moment of detention. Searches yielded a fleet of luxury vehicles, five Swiss watches, weapons, and cash in various currencies totalling over UAH 22.6 million. This is not a personal success story of the suspects. It is materialised impunity.

LEGAL QUALIFICATION

The actions of the police commanders were charged under Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — receipt of unlawful benefit in an especially large amount by an official holding a responsible position, committed by a group of persons pursuant to a prior conspiracy. The sanction provides for imprisonment from eight to twelve years with confiscation of property.

The qualifying element of “prior conspiracy by a group of persons” is of fundamental importance. This is not a technical detail – it is evidence of the organised, rather than spontaneous, character of the corruption. The multiple documented episodes of money transfers point to an established criminal practice, not a one-off incident.

Separate attention should be paid to the atypical architecture of the criminal group: only commanders and a driver – i.e. the highest and lowest tiers – without an intermediate level. This either reflects a carefully constructed scheme of insulation, or signals that the middle tier has not yet been identified. This structural dissonance merits separate investigative attention.

OFFICIAL STATISTICS AS A MIRROR OF LATENCY: THE CRIME IT IS PROFITABLE NOT TO RECORD

An analysis of official police statistics concerning two core articles – keeping brothels and procuring (Article 302 of the Criminal Code) and pimping or inducing a person into prostitution (Article 303 of the Criminal Code) – reveals a stark paradox. Official data shows a steady decline in registered crimes against the backdrop of widely documented growth in the underlying practices. This is not evidence of a successful law enforcement system – it is an indicator of the system’s institutional interest in keeping this market segment invisible.

This is precisely why these categories of crime are traditionally classified as “ancillary” offences relative to human trafficking: their true scale is structurally absent from official statistics, because registration runs contrary to the interests of those tasked with registering.

The peak figures were recorded in 2014 – 509 registered crimes and 379 notices of suspicion. A sustained downward trend followed, with several characteristic deviations. In 2022, following the start of the full-scale invasion, only 61 crimes of this category were recorded – a reduction of 88% compared to the peak. In 2025 the figure stood at 54.

If interpreted literally, these data would suggest that the sexual services industry in Ukraine has virtually disappeared. Reality, as documented by investigative journalism, tells the opposite story: frontline cities have become regional hubs for sexual services, with clearly structured pricing – from 30–40 euros for a “massage” to 200 euros for trips to the combat zone. Demand has grown, the market has transformed, yet none of this appears in official statistics. Because it is profitable for other people in uniform.

The dynamics under Article 303 differ somewhat but follow the same logic. After notable growth in 2017–2018 (412 crimes — the maximum for the entire period studied), figures fall again: 195 crimes in 2022, 244 in 2024, 171 in 2025. The temporary increase in 2023 (348 crimes) can be explained by a partial restoration of law enforcement functions and the dislocation of criminal networks to safer territories, but by no means by any genuine increase in this type of crime.

LATENCY AS A STRUCTURAL PHENOMENON: CRIMES TURNED INTO BUSINESS

Crimes in the sphere of sexual services are classic examples of structural latency – a condition in which crime is systematically not recorded not because it is absent, but because its registration is contrary to the interests of law enforcement. Classical criminology distinguishes natural latency (the victim does not report) from artificial latency (law enforcement conceals the crime). In the case of the “porn-rent” corruption exposed on 20 May 2026, we are dealing with the second type – institutionalised and monetised.

The mechanism is simple and robust.

First, the victims and participants in such crimes have their own interest in avoiding police attention – they are either themselves administrative offenders, or they depend on “protection”.

Second, police commanders, receiving regular payments for “non-interference”, do not merely look the other way passively – they actively suppress any attempts by subordinates to document these violations. Official statistics reflect not the actual state of crime, but the result of this active filtering.

Consider the “suspicion rate” indicator – the share of registered crimes for which a notice of suspicion has been issued. Under Article 302, it fluctuates between 64.3% (2016) and 94.4% (2025). This means that those cases which do make it into the statistics are investigated with reasonable effectiveness. The paradox lies elsewhere: only a small fraction of actual crimes are registered – predominantly those arising from competitive conflicts between market actors.

The statistical collapse of 2022 – a drop to 61 registered crimes under Article 302 – is telling. It coincided not with the disappearance of the market, but with Russia’s full-scale invasion. Law enforcement resources were redirected, traditional “protection rackets” were partially disrupted. But the market was not. The Kramatorsk hub, described in detail by investigative journalists, emerged precisely as an adaptation to new geographical and social conditions.

QUANTITATIVE DIMENSION OF THE HIDDEN SCALE

The true extent of latency can be estimated by cross-referencing several indicators. According to research estimates, the latency coefficient for prostitution-related crimes ranges from 1:10 to 1:50 in various countries – meaning that for every registered crime, between 10 and 50 go unregistered. Even applying the conservative multiplier of 1:10 yields a picture sharply at odds with official data: if 54 crimes under Article 302 were registered in 2025, the actual number of such instances may have reached 540 to 2,700 per year.

These estimates are consistent with the demographic logic: Ukraine in 2025 has over 25 million residents in government-controlled territories, a significant proportion of whom are internally displaced persons – predominantly women in extremely precarious economic circumstances. The combination of large-scale demographic vulnerability and weakened institutional control is a classic environment for the expansion of an unregulated sexual services market. Official statistics do not capture this process – they capture the size of the corruption shield that conceals it.

A further indicator is the structure of the online market. According to market participants’ estimates, approximately 90% of online sexual services advertisements are fraudulent (scams), which itself evidences the broad presence of organised criminal groups in the online segment. Organised crime, oriented towards large-scale and systematic profit, requires systematic “cover”. This is precisely the corruption rent we observe in the case of 20 May 2026.

THE CORE THESIS: PROHIBITION AS A GENERATOR OF CORRUPTION RENT

The systemic bribery exposed on 20 May 2026 is not a consequence of the personal immorality of particular police officers. It is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the state’s prohibition on the legitimate operation of adult content online platforms.

Any prohibition of profitable but technically feasible activity in conditions of mass demand creates a rent space: the market moves underground but does not disappear. Platforms such as OnlyFans are publicly accessible without registration, operate around the clock, and any person can use them without any real restrictions from the state. The prohibition, in other words, is de facto non-operational and incapable of operation.

Instead, it creates a legal lever for coercion: since the activity is “illegal”, law enforcement officials acquire the monopoly power to decide – to prosecute or to “overlook”. This discretion converts into money. This is precisely how corruption rent arises – a regular payment for non-prosecution of that which the state formally prohibits but is factually incapable of blocking.

Here an entirely absurd paradox of public administration emerges. On the one hand, the state attempts to tax women engaged in such activity. On the other hand, it classifies this very same activity as a crime and prosecutes the same women criminally. The result is the creation of ideal conditions for unlimited police racketeering. Would such systemic bribery have occurred if the operation of such platforms had been legalised? Obviously not. The state itself created the conditions for the commission of these crimes.

The criminalisation of online erotic platforms, contrary to its declared objective of eradicating them, effectively pushes them deeper into the shadows – to a place where there is no legal oversight whatsoever, where women are left entirely unprotected, and where the preconditions for direct sexual exploitation arise. Law enforcement officials occupied with collecting corruption rent objectively have neither the time nor the motivation to combat genuinely dangerous forms of crime — trafficking, forced prostitution, child pornography.

THE SYSTEMIC DIMENSION

The intermediary in the scheme was the personal driver of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. This is not a peripheral detail – it is a structural node of the entire construction. A driver is a person with constant physical access to a senior official, with unrecorded informal contacts, and with the capacity to conduct a parallel business life in the shadow of an official status. The question that inevitably arises: how far does the chain extend? No public suspicion has been directed at the Deputy Minister himself, but the mere fact that his immediate entourage proved to be the hub of a multi-oblast corruption network raises obvious institutional questions that cannot be ignored.

The scheme covered three regions simultaneously. This is not a local phenomenon and not a coincidence. It is either evidence of centralised coordination through a single intermediary, or – even more worrying – a sign of a widespread market practice in which regional police commanders independently and separately enter the market for protecting illegal businesses.

The case unfolds in the context of a full-scale war, and this gives it a qualitatively different dimension. Regional police department heads are not merely administrators. They are officials with access to operational information, accounting systems, security chains, and contacts with the SBU and military administration. A person who takes bribes and is dependent on a criminal business is a vulnerability in the country’s security system. In wartime, this is not merely corruption – it is a threat to national security.

The statistical data presented above confirm the systemic, rather than episodic, character of this phenomenon. If “protection rackets” were an isolated deviation, we would observe chaotic fluctuations in the statistics. Instead, we see a smooth downward registration trajectory with a clear correlation to general system stresses (the 2020 pandemic, the full-scale invasion of 2022) — and rapid recovery thereafter. This is structure, not accident.

A REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE

It is necessary to move away from artificial moralising and to frame the question in its real dimension: what specific moral harm has the existence of the relevant web platforms inflicted on Ukrainian society – and what moral harm has their protection by police inflicted? The answer is obvious.

The legalisation and regulation of online sex platforms is not a moral choice. It is an anti-corruption strategy. Its logic is simple: lawful activity does not require protection from the police — it is protected by law. The rent space disappears, and with it the corruption incentive.

Regulation, rather than prohibition, makes it possible to protect the rights of industry participants, introduce age and consent verification, tax revenues, and refocus law enforcement resources on real crimes — trafficking, coercion, child pornography. To speak of prohibition and criminal prosecution of something that exists completely openly, that requires no registration and operates 24/7, is entirely absurd. The state has discredited itself through the exposure of this scheme.

Statistical analysis confirms this conclusion methodologically. If over 13 years official statistics show an unvarying decline in crimes in a sphere that is clearly not declining in reality – this is not a problem with the offenders. It is a problem with the legal model, which generates structural latency and corruption rent instead of genuine protection.

One can predictably expect that, once the initial resonance fades, yesterday’s moralists in uniform will begin to speak of the need for legalisation – precisely because their own system for protecting illegal businesses has proven vulnerable. Society should take note of those voices and verify whether real reformist will stands behind them.

CONCLUSIONS

This case is more than a criminal scandal. It is a mirror of a systemic crisis generated by the convergence of three factors: an artificial prohibition that creates a corruption market; the structural latency of crimes that serves this prohibition; and the absence of real internal oversight within the law enforcement system.

Statistical data for 2013–2025 testify not to the success of efforts to combat crime in the sphere of sexual services, but to a persistent and systemic practice of concealing it from registration. The 88% decline in registered crimes under Article 302 of the Criminal Code and the 58% decline under Article 303 occurred in conditions where actual market volumes, by all independent estimates, were not shrinking — and in certain sub-periods were growing. This is materialised latency.

The true test of intentions will not be the arrests, but the verdicts. Even more telling will be whether this case prompts a systemic review of oversight mechanisms for regional police commanders, or whether it remains another signal after which the system reverts to its customary state.

Without structural changes — decriminalisation of online platforms, audit of the internal oversight system, refocusing of law enforcement resources on serious crimes, and a methodological revision of approaches to measuring latent crime — the next such scheme will be only a matter of time. And society will again pay for it — in money, security, and trust in the state at its most critical hour.

There is, however, a detail that gives pause – both in scale and in symbolism. This tragedy, by the calendar, preceded the beginning of the American Revolution by a single day. Yes, it was on April 19, 1775 – exactly 251 years ago – that the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord. Armed citizens who refused to surrender their weapons to British soldiers opened a new chapter in the world history of democracy.

Between the two dates – April 18 and April 19 – lies a chasm of two and a half centuries and an abyss of meaning. But there is also a common thread: the question of who controls weapons in a society, and what price ordinary citizens pay for that. This thread is just as relevant today as it was 251 years ago.

THE STATISTICS IT IS CONVENIENT TO IGNORE

The debate over opening the firearms market during a full-scale war is, to put it mildly, absurd — not because it is the ‘wrong’ topic, but because the answer has already been written by reality, encoded in official police statistics that people prefer not to read. Let us look at the numbers.

The data reveal two distinct cycles of violence separated by a pre-war low. The first peak falls in 2014 (2,523 proceedings) – the year of Crimea’s annexation and the start of the armed conflict in the East: a sharp saturation of weapons, disorganization of law enforcement, and collapse of unified command. The following years show a gradual normalization – through to the 2021 minimum (300 proceedings). These figures should be treated as the baseline for comparison.

The full-scale invasion of 2022 produced a new spike: +543% relative to 2021 in the very first year (1,929 proceedings). A critical detail: the proportion of suspicion notices to total proceedings in 2022–2023 collapsed to 25–27% (compared to 77–86% in peacetime). This means the majority of cases were opened without identified suspects – a direct consequence of uncontrolled weapons proliferation and overburdened investigators. The positive trend of 2024–2025 (declining to 821–832 proceedings) reflects system adaptation, but the level remains twice the pre-war baseline.

This table records an even more alarming dynamic.

While the overall number of firearm-related crimes in 2022–2023 primarily reflected the chaos of the first months of the invasion, the homicide statistics point to a qualitatively different process. The year 2023 is the absolute peak across all 13 years of observation: 909 intentional firearm homicides – 25 times the 2021 minimum (36).

The most telling indicator is clearance. In 2023, it fell to 19%: only 173 of 909 cases had an identified suspect. In practical terms, 736 intentional homicides went unsolved within a single calendar year. For comparison: in 2018–2021, clearance rates stood at 90–98%. The recovery seen in 2024–2025 (52–64%) is a positive trend, yet it remains at least twice below peacetime levels. This means a significant share of those who committed firearm homicides during the active phase of the conflict remains unpunished – and continues to live in society.

AND THEN THE VIDEO APPEARS

And then a video appears that cannot be ignored.

During the terrorist attack in Kyiv, individuals in patrol police uniforms, upon hearing gunshots, simply fled – leaving civilians without protection. The recording shows a child forced to save herself on her own. The footage was published by TSN and Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. The officers have been suspended from duty. Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko has ordered a disciplinary investigation.

Declarations are good. But the question is not what the minister said this morning. The question is what happens after the investigation concludes – assuming guilt is established and the authenticity of the recordings is confirmed. If police leadership fails to demonstrate a genuine response – not a declarative one, but one with concrete disciplinary consequences – the problem will intensify. Not because ‘the police are bad,’ but because institutional silence following such a video legitimizes conduct incompatible with the status of a law enforcement officer.

Among a segment of Ukrainian police officers, a dangerous attitude has taken hold during the full-scale war. Wartime, where violence is normalized, only reinforces the self-preservation reflex – at the expense of the protection reflex. Fleeing a shooter is not the cowardice of individuals. It is a symptom of systemic institutional degradation that cannot be fixed by a single disciplinary inquiry.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: WHAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ACTUALLY GAVE

Let us return to the symbolism of the date.

April 19, 1775 – the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The first shots of the American Revolution. The shot heard round the world. And a few years later, the first modern constitutional democracy was born.

The right to bear arms did not merely allow Americans to win the War of Independence. It structured American democracy for two and a half centuries and embedded at its core the principle that an armed citizen is a subject, not an object, of power. This principle was enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791): “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

American statistics demonstrate the obvious: high firearms saturation correlates with higher rates of firearm-related crime. 79% of intentional homicides in the United States involve a firearm. In EU countries, that figure ranges from 20% to 40%. The American model is not a template to emulate in a criminological sense. But it is a template in a constitutional-democratic sense: the right to self-defense as the foundation of the relationship between citizen and state.

It is important to distinguish two levels of debate. The first is criminological: more guns = more of certain categories of crime. The statistics confirm this, and to deny it is to ignore reality. The second is constitutional-democratic: the right of an armed citizen as a deterrent against state arbitrariness and as the basis of popular sovereignty. These two levels do not contradict each other – they describe different dimensions of the same reality.

UKRAINE TODAY: A SOCIETY WITH WEAPONS IN HAND

Ukraine today is a society in which millions of citizens, weapons in hand, are defending the state from destruction. By estimates, as of 2025, between 6 and 10 million units of various types of weapons are in civilian circulation – including among demobilized soldiers and veterans. Some are legally registered. Some are not. This is a fact that must be lived with.

The gravest threat lies ahead. Hundreds of thousands of demobilized soldiers are returning from the front. Some with untreated PTSD. Some with weapons, legally or not. The experience of other conflicts – Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Balkans – shows that crime rates among veterans do not rise immediately, but rather 2–3 years after demobilization. That wave has not yet arrived. And if the state does not prepare, the police statistics of 2027–2028 will become the subject of parliamentary inquiries, not academic articles.

The question is not whether to ‘legalize or not.’ The question is what institutional culture we are building around this reality – and whether the state is capable of the accountability that follows from it.

INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION: THE STATE THAT DOES NOT PROTECT — AND THE CITIZEN WHO PROTECTS HIMSELF

The American Revolution began because the state failed to protect its citizens – and so they took up arms themselves. The Kyiv tragedy of April 18, 2026 – and especially the video of officers fleeing a shooter while leaving a child at the center of the gunfire – is a painful reminder that this question remains very much alive today.

A police officer who flees a shooter and abandons a child to their fate is not merely a disciplinary matter. It is a symptom. A state that wishes to grant its citizens the right to bear arms – or that has already done so de facto, having distributed millions of weapons in the first days of the invasion – must first demonstrate that it itself knows how to handle weapons responsibly and protect those who protect it.

The statistics are incontrovertible: the full-scale war produced a sharp spike in firearm-related crime – +543% in the first year alone. But those same statistics show that in 2024–2025, the numbers began to fall. This means that society and the state are adapting. The question is: in which direction. Toward the rule of law and institutional accountability – or toward the normalization of impunity, in which police officers flee and killers remain unidentified.

The weapon used by the gunman was officially registered, and he himself held the relevant permits. According to journalists’ reports, the man turned out to be a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian Armed Forces – a native of Moscow with Ukrainian citizenship – who, according to some sources, had made donations in support of the so-called ‘special military operation’. According to preliminary information, he had already attacked people in the same shop three years earlier. Neighbours say he moved into the building at the start of the full-scale invasion.

These facts form a chilling picture, but our task is not to inflame emotions – it is to try to answer, calmly and honestly, the questions that this tragedy inevitably poses to society, the law enforcement system and the rule of law.

WEAPONS, LICENCES AND THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY

The first and most obvious conclusion that springs to mind is that this crime was committed using a legally registered weapon. This is not a mere detail but a fundamentally important circumstance that undermines one of the central arguments of those lobbying for the free circulation of firearms: ‘Legal Weapons = Safety’.

The debate over the liberalisation of the firearms market in Ukraine has raged for years, but it intensified particularly in the context of the full-scale war, when a section of society and a number of lawmakers began insisting on enshrining the right to bear arms in the constitution, citing the need for self-defence and patriotic duty. The tragedy in Korsun polarised society at the time: many people sympathised with the man who had used a weapon against law enforcement officers – which in itself is symptomatic and alarming.

The current case is fundamentally different. Here there is no ‘people’s avenger’ or ‘Korsun Robin Hood’, nor is there any hint of social conflict with the system. There is a retired lieutenant-colonel who shoots peaceful supermarket shoppers with a legally registered pistol. It is precisely this circumstance that should settle the debate: not ‘who’ commits the crime or what their ideology is, but the fact that Ukraine’s system for issuing firearms licences is structurally incapable of filtering out those who harbour hidden destructive intentions. Screening during the registration of firearms has proved futile. Previous attacks on people in the same shop did not lead to the licence being revoked. The system failed.

Here, however, we must refrain from oversimplification. The people’s right to resist tyranny remains a fundamental principle of constitutional theory and international legal tradition. The question is not whether a citizen has the right to defend themselves, but whether the state is capable of responsibly managing the circulation of weapons in conditions of hybrid warfare, social trauma and the psychological instability of the population. The answer provided by this tragedy is – not yet.

NEGOTIATIONS, DE-ESCALATION AND COMMUNICATION FAILURE

For around 40 minutes, negotiators attempted to establish contact with the attacker, but he did not respond. “He did not make contact. I did not hear him,” noted the head of the negotiation unit at the Kyiv National Police.

This is a key detail that requires separate analysis. Forty minutes is both a long time and a short time. For negotiators, this is a relatively brief period in tactical terms. But the very fact of a complete lack of any response from the attacker indicates not only his pathological determination, but also a fundamental problem: were these forty minutes used with genuinely professional techniques for engaging a person in crisis? Does our police force even have the necessary level of training for negotiators capable of working with people who have crossed a psychological threshold?

Today, a dangerous mindset prevails among some Ukrainian police officers: ‘Shoot First – Sort It Out Later’. This mindset has gained further momentum in a wartime environment, where violence is normalised and the right to use force is interpreted far more broadly than provided for by law and human rights standards. The Kyiv tragedy, like many before it, risks becoming not a catalyst for reform but a confirmation of this flawed logic. Meanwhile, the ECtHR consistently emphasises that when assessing the lawfulness of the use of lethal force, account must be taken not only of the actions of the perpetrators but also of all the surrounding circumstances – in particular, planning and control (Mikhalkova and Others v. Ukraine, para. 36; McCann and Others v. the UK [GC], para. 150). The legislative and administrative framework must clearly define the limited circumstances in which law enforcement officers may use firearms, and police officers must not be left in a state of uncertainty regarding these limits (Soare and Others v. Romania, para. 129).

The true measure of police effectiveness is the ability to resolve critical situations without resorting to lethal force. It is in this direction that modern policing is developing in democratic countries, where officers acquire skills honed over years in de-escalation, psychological influence and – only in extreme cases – the use of weapons. The ECtHR in Soare and Others v. Romania explicitly stated that the absence of clear rules and proper training explains the inadequate and autonomous actions of police officers in critical situations (para. 135). And in Celniku v. Greece, the Court held that Article 2 of the ECHR covers not only the direct actions of police officers but also staff training: if the level of training does not correspond to the complexity of the tasks at hand, the state bears responsibility.

NEUTRALISATION OF THE ATTACKER: ARTICLE 2 OF THE ECHR AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko stated that KORD special forces carried out a raid and neutralised the attacker. During the assault, the perpetrator resisted law enforcement officers and opened fire on them.

In the acute phase of a crisis, when a person is actively shooting at police officers, the use of lethal force is formally justified even under the strict standards of Article 2 of the Convention.

The ECtHR, in cases such as McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, Nachova v. Bulgaria and Finogenov v. Russia, has consistently developed the criterion of ‘absolute necessity’: the state is obliged to prove that the person’s death was the result of force that did not exceed what was absolutely necessary in the specific circumstances. At the same time, as explained in McCann and Others v. the UK [GC] (para. 200), the use of force is justified only where the agents genuinely believed that opening fire was necessary and had subjectively sufficient grounds for doing so — rather than merely following orders.

The standard of ‘absolute necessity’ is stricter than the criterion of ‘necessary in a democratic society’ under Articles 8 and 11 of the ECHR: force must be strictly proportionate (Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], para. 199; Kelly and Others v. the UK, para. 93). In a situation involving the rescue of a hostage from an armed criminal offering active resistance, these conditions may be met — but this still requires verification.

But this is precisely where the issue begins that most commentators prefer to sidestep. The state is obliged to conduct an effective independent investigation into whether there really was no other tactical option. Were all possibilities for a non-violent resolution of the situation exhausted? Was the timing of the assault correctly chosen? Is every shot fired by KORD officers documented and justified? The ECtHR in Al-Skeini and Others v. the UK [GC] (para. 163) and Armani Da Silva v. the UK [GC] (para. 233) clearly stated: the investigation must cover not only the immediate actions of those carrying out the operation but also the planning and control of the operation as a whole; it must be capable of establishing whether the use of force was justified. Any shortcoming that undermines this capability constitutes a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the ECHR. A telling example is the case of Finogenov and Others v. Russia (Operation ‘Nord-Ost’), where the Court found a violation precisely because of the incompleteness and bias of the investigation.

In the context of Ukraine during a full-scale invasion, a public demand for an investigation into the circumstances of the death of a man who had just killed six civilians sounds critically unpopular. But this is precisely the essence of the rule of law: Article 2 of the ECHR protects the right to life not only of the criminal’s victims, but also of the criminal himself. Without this principle, the entire human rights framework becomes a situational compromise of the majority, rather than a system of universal guarantees. Article 2 of the ECHR imposes a positive obligation on the state not only to refrain from the intentional deprivation of life, but also to take preventive measures to protect persons within its jurisdiction (Yuriy Illarionovich Shchokin v. Ukraine, para. 35). A general legal prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life becomes ineffective without an effective review procedure: this is precisely how the Court formulated it in Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC] (para. 249) and Al-Skeini and Others v. the UK [GC] (para. 163). Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus demonstrates that even a hostage rescue operation resulting in the death of a perpetrator may be deemed lawful – but only provided that planning was carried out with a view to minimising risk, negotiations were conducted rationally, and the operatives had clear instructions to use only proportionate force (para. 194).

Furthermore, there is a purely practical argument: a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian Armed Forces who had lived in Ukraine, made donations to the ‘SVO’ and ultimately carried out a mass shooting – this was a source of information of exceptional value to counter-intelligence. His motives, connections, possible handlers and funding channels could all have been established during interrogations. His elimination has permanently shut down that channel.

THE DANGER OF ‘SECURITY’ DISCOURSE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

This tragedy will inevitably give rise to legislative initiatives. Some will be aimed at tightening controls on the circulation of weapons — and this is justified and necessary. But others — and this is where alarm bells should ring — will use this incident to justify expanding the police apparatus, intensifying preventive surveillance and legalising ‘proactive’ operational measures.

This mechanism is well known in human rights practice: a terrorist attack or large-scale crime becomes a ‘window of opportunity’ for the state to expand its powers in areas where citizens would not normally permit such intrusion. Laws passed ‘in the heat of the moment’ are, as a rule, not repealed even after the shock has passed.

The right to private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to the protection of personal data, the right not to be subject to preventive police surveillance without sufficient grounds – all these guarantees are under threat whenever society experiences a sudden surge of fear. The standard of ‘necessary in a democratic society’ under Article 8 of the ECHR is less stringent than the criterion of ‘absolutely necessary’ under Article 2, but even this does not permit the state to introduce widespread preventive surveillance without individual grounds and judicial oversight. The task of the human rights community, the legal profession and the academic community is to ensure that a single tragedy does not become a justification for systemic restrictions on rights that will affect millions of people who have no connection whatsoever to the crime.

POLICE TRAINING

A dangerous trend that has long been brewing within the Ukrainian police has now gained new momentum: a readiness to use weapons before establishing the facts. The tragedy of 18 April risks becoming not a warning but a justification for this logic – and it is currently extremely difficult to assess the true scale of such a shift.

That is precisely why this case must serve as a compelling argument in favour of a systematic review of police training – but not in the direction of improving marksmanship or physical skills. We are talking about something fundamentally different: training officers in the art of communication, the ability to defuse tension in real time and the professional application of de-escalation techniques.

The true measure of the effectiveness of a modern police force is the ability to resolve critical situations without violence. The shift from a punitive model to one of dialogue and professional restraint is not romanticism but a practical necessity. This is where the future of Ukraine’s law enforcement system lies.

CONCLUSIONS

This tragedy presents a multi-layered challenge. For society, it is a call for restraint amidst emotional pressure and the temptation of simplistic answers. For legislators, it is a challenge to draft regulations that genuinely enhance safety without becoming instruments of punitive bureaucracy. For the police, it is a mirror in which they must see not their own heroism but their systemic shortcomings in training, de-escalation and tactical flexibility. For human rights defenders, it is a reminder that the protection of human rights cannot be conditional: either it applies to everyone, or it does not exist as a principle.

Six families are mourning their loved ones. This is an undeniable reality, and it takes precedence. But the appropriate response to these deaths is not a new wave of police aggression or a flurry of emotional legislation – it is a systematic, dispassionate and honest analysis of where the system failed, and how to fix it without losing our humanity.

Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old grandmother and mother of three, spent over five months behind bars after Fargo (North Dakota) police linked her to bank frauds committed in a state where, by her own account, she had never been. It was only after her extradition to North Dakota that her lawyer discovered bank records confirming that Lipps had been in Tennessee at the time the crimes were committed. The charges were dropped on 23 December, and she was released on Christmas Eve.

This case calls for a much deeper analysis than simply noting yet another algorithmic failure. It demonstrates a structural pattern inherent in every era of technological transformation in criminal justice: a new identification tool is introduced with enthusiasm and uncritical trust, supplanting tried-and-tested methods of establishing facts, whilst specific individuals become the victims of systemic errors. To see this pattern for oneself, one need only look at a case that took place over 120 years ago in London.

THE CASE OF ADOLF BECK: ANATOMY OF AN IDENTIFICATION ERROR AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

In 1896, the Norwegian national Adolf Beck was convicted by the Central Criminal Court of London (the Old Bailey) for a series of frauds against women — allegedly, posing as a lord, he would approach them on the street, promise expensive gifts, and steal their jewellery. The verdict was based almost exclusively on witness testimony: the victims identified Beck unanimously. Moreover, the police established that similar crimes had been committed in 1877 by a person using the same modus operandi — and this old case was attributed to Beck without sufficient grounds.

After serving five years of his sentence, Beck was released in 1901 — only to find himself back in custody in 1904 on identical charges. And once again: confident, unanimous eyewitness testimony. And once again: an innocent man. The real offender — William Thomas, operating under the alias John Smith — was apprehended only by chance: he committed yet another fraud after Beck’s second arrest and was caught in the act. Beck was released and pardoned. The total duration of his wrongful imprisonment amounted to approximately seven years.

What allowed this miscarriage of justice to occur not once but twice? The answer lies in the institutional attitude towards the new identification paradigm. The late nineteenth century was the era of what was then called ‘scientific policing’: Bertillon’s anthropometry, later fingerprinting, and systematised procedures for questioning witnesses. Eyewitnesses no longer simply ‘recognised’ a suspect — they participated in a procedure that carried the trappings of scientific rigour. The procedural authority of identification became self-sufficient evidence requiring no verification. Beck’s alibis were not seriously investigated precisely because ‘scientific’ identification appeared more reliable than any exculpatory counter-evidence.

The Beck case had significant legal consequences: in 1907, the Court of Criminal Appeal was established in England — directly as an institutional response to the demonstrated inability of the system to self-correct in cases involving identification errors.

STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM AND FAILURES OF PROOF

A comparison of the Beck and Lipps cases reveals a striking structural isomorphism, suggesting a consistent pattern rather than mere coincidence.

First, in both cases the identification technology was introduced into law enforcement practice without proper validation and without established standards for its admissibility. The Fargo police chief admitted at a press conference that the department had acquired its own facial recognition system ‘without the knowledge of senior management’ and without agreed protocols for its use. ‘We would not have allowed this to be used,’ he stated, noting that the system has since been prohibited. In the Beck case, systematic in-person identification was similarly introduced as a tool of ‘progress’ without adequate consideration of its inherent limitations.

Second, in both cases alibis or counter-evidence were available from the outset but were not properly investigated, due to excessive reliance on the identification outcome. Lipps’s lawyers emphasised that ‘the police officer used facial recognition as a substitute for basic investigation’ and that ‘no investigation was carried out to establish whether she was even in North Dakota at the relevant time’. The word ‘substitute’ is key: the technology did not supplement traditional investigative methods — it replaced them.

Third, in both cases the institutional machinery continued to move by inertia even after the first signs of error appeared. The police received information about potentially exculpatory evidence as early as 12 December, yet a substantive response — involving the investigator, the prosecutor, and the judge — did not follow until 23 December, more than five months after the arrest.

Fourth, the legal consequences for the victims proved catastrophic beyond the scope of the criminal proceedings themselves. For Beck, prolonged detention destroyed his reputation and social standing. For Lipps, ‘the trauma, loss of liberty and reputational damage cannot be easily remedied’, her lawyers state, noting that they are considering bringing civil rights claims.

This parallel points to a central theoretical problem: why do such errors recur with each technological shift in the identification paradigm? The answer lies in what might be called technological determinism in evidence law — the tendency, once a new tool acquires ‘scientific’ status, to treat it as a priori superior to traditional forms of evidence. This cognitive bias is reinforced by a structural asymmetry: the flaws of traditional methods (eyewitness testimony, documentary records) are well known and openly discussed, whereas the flaws of the new tool remain systematically invisible until the first high-profile scandal.

PROCEDURAL AND NORMATIVE DIMENSIONS

The Lipps case highlights several normative questions long debated in the doctrine of criminal procedure, which have taken on new urgency with the widespread introduction of AI into law enforcement.

The first is the admissibility standard for algorithmic evidence. The result of Clearview AI’s facial recognition served as the basis for issuing an arrest warrant with inter-state extradition — without any verification by an independent competent authority.

The second concerns procedural safeguards when using automated systems. The ‘human-in-the-loop’ principle has gained widespread formal recognition, yet the Lipps case demonstrates its practical erosion: a human is technically present, but their role is reduced to relaying the algorithmic output without critical scrutiny. ‘The detectives mistakenly assumed that they had also been sent photographs from the scene along with the identification conclusion,’ the police chief admitted — describing a process in which even the minimal verification step nominally built into the procedure was bypassed by those captivated by the authority of the algorithm.

The third concerns remedial justice. The police chief declined to apologise, citing an ongoing investigation into a ‘wide network of individuals’. This stance is symptomatic: institutional denial of responsibility is as much a structural component of the pattern as the original error.

CONCLUSIONS: THE PERPETUAL RACE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

The Lipps case is neither an anomaly nor the product of purely individual negligence. It is the predictable outcome of an incomplete institutional understanding of a new identification paradigm. One hundred and thirty years separate the Adolf Beck case from the Angela Lipps case, yet the nature of the error is unchanged. Technological innovation alters only the instrument; the first victims are always those whose alibi proves ‘less convincing’ than the authority of an identification system that has not yet stood the test of time.

For the doctrine of evidence law, the Lipps case reaffirms that proven reliability, reproducibility of results, and independent verification must remain the constant criteria for the admissibility of evidence, regardless of the technological nature of the tool. The foundational principle — that no evidence is self-sufficient and that all evidence must be tested in adversarial proceedings — is not superseded by the advent of artificial intelligence. On the contrary: the more powerful the tool, the stricter the procedural framework governing its use must be.

The genuine novelty of our era lies not in the fact that algorithms make mistakes — all identification systems do — but in the fact that the pace and scale of their deployment are outrunning the development of legal safeguards against their errors.

That said, the bill’s authors proved flexible: if a citizen genuinely wants to hear a foreign voice on the line, they can personally notify their operator of this unorthodox wish. In other words, silence from the outside world becomes the default, and the desire to hear it becomes an administrative act of personal courage. What was perfectly ordinary just yesterday—receiving a call from relatives abroad — will tomorrow become a privilege reserved for those who took the trouble to submit a request.

It should also be noted that the rule will not apply to numbers from the Union State — meaning Belarus remains accessible. The rest of the world does not. The geography of trust, as we can see, is clearly defined.

Now for the most interesting part.

The official justification for the law is the fight against telephone scammers who call from abroad and swindle money from the elderly. The problem is certainly real and acute. But this raises a delicate question: what will happen to the domestic fraud sector, which, according to Russian law enforcement officials themselves, is thriving just as vigorously and, unlike its foreign competitors, calls exclusively from numbers with the +7 code?

The logic of the law, if you think about it, runs something like this: we cannot allow a grandmother from Ryazan to fall victim to some scoundrel from Kyiv or Warsaw — that would be an affront to national dignity. But if that same pensioner hands over her savings to a “bank security officer” from Nizhny Novgorod — that is purely an internal matter, a private arrangement between citizens of the same state.

The state, in this way, carefully protects domestic producers from unfair foreign competition. Protectionism in its purest form — only instead of tariffs, a legislative blockade against outside challengers.

It is also worth considering the aesthetics of this decision.

The Iron Curtain of the Soviet era closed the borders to people — it prevented them from leaving. The new, digital and telephonic curtain operates more subtly: it simply prevents anyone from calling in. Bodies may remain wherever they are, but the information space is neatly contracted to the confines of the Union State, plus whatever one declares to one’s operator.

It is telling that the measures specifically target landline phones and people over 60—that is, those most dependent on their home telephone as their primary window to the world. Young people have long communicated via messaging apps — those have not been shut down yet (though, judging by the pace, their turn will come). But the grandmother with a rotary-dial phone in the kitchen — she is now “protected.” In the sense of “protection” that is difficult to distinguish from isolation.

All that remains is to wish the bill’s authors consistency.

If foreign scammers are dangerous — shut down the internet too. If foreign news distorts reality — it has largely been shut down already. If foreign words pollute the language — there are lawmakers with precisely such bills in hand. If foreign air carries unwanted ideas…

We will stop there. The State Duma has no shortage of inspiration as it is.