Detention: Grounds and Conditions for Applying a Preventive Measure
Detention is considered the most severe preventive measure within criminal proceedings and is applied exclusively in exceptional cases. Its purpose is not to prematurely punish a person before a court decision is made, but to ensure proper procedural behavior of the suspect or accused, as well as to minimize the risks defined by Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Legislation in the field of criminal procedure provides that the grounds for choosing a preventive measure are the presence of reasonable suspicion and risks that may indicate the likelihood of the person evading investigation or court, destroying, hiding, or distorting evidence, illegally influencing victims, witnesses, and other participants in the proceedings, obstructing the investigation in any other way, or committing a new criminal offense.
According to Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, detention is allowed only if the prosecutor proves that the use of milder preventive measures will not eliminate the established risks.
When deciding on the application of such a preventive measure, the court must verify key circumstances: the presence of reasonable suspicion, the existence of at least one legally defined risk, and the insufficiency of milder measures to prevent them. If the prosecutor fails to prove all these circumstances, the court is obliged to refuse the application of the preventive measure or may choose a milder measure.
Proper motivation of the court decision is of particular importance. Risks cannot be stated formally or stereotypically – they must be supported by specific factual data. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights also holds that detention requires "appropriate" and "sufficient" grounds, and courts must consider the possibility of applying alternative preventive measures.
During martial law, the issue of detention often arises in proceedings concerning crimes against the foundations of national security, war crimes, and other serious offenses. At the same time, even in such categories of cases, the court must assess individual circumstances: the person's behavior, social ties, health condition, presence of a permanent residence, risk of hiding, possibility of influencing witnesses, or obstructing proceedings.
The specifics of applying detention in proceedings concerning criminal offenses against the foundations of Ukraine's national security are due to the increased public danger of such acts and their focus against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, defense capability, and security of the state. In such cases, courts especially carefully assess the risks of the person hiding from justice, possible connections with representatives of the aggressor state, presence in temporarily occupied territory, possibility of influencing witnesses, or continuing unlawful activities.
At the same time, even in this category of criminal proceedings, detention must not be applied formally: the court must verify the presence of reasonable suspicion, specific risks, and the impossibility of preventing them by applying a milder preventive measure, reported by the Kherson Court of Appeal.
Thus, detention cannot be an automatic consequence of notification of suspicion or the severity of the accusation. It is an exceptional preventive measure, the application of which requires proper evidentiary justification, individual assessment of the circumstances of the case, and maintaining a balance between the interests of justice and the human right to freedom.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
