Interrogation under Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Expectations vs Reality
The available justice tools and the process of handling criminal proceedings acquire new features when applied in practice in the context of investigating the consequences of armed conflict in Ukraine. ULAG lawyers, representing the interests of victims of war crimes, are able to explore practical challenges and identify problems that arise in the course of proceedings involving the gravest international crimes. In this article, we share our experience of conducting a witness interrogation during the pre-trial investigation before an investigating judge under Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CPC of Ukraine).
Case Overview
Since 2014, enforced disappearances of civilians have become more widespread in the occupied territories of Ukraine due to the armed conflict. Some individuals were later identified in unofficial places of detention, showing signs of ill-treatment. The fate of many others remains unknown. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion, an additional risk emerged: the deportation of detainees from occupied territories to Russia.
In one such case, a woman was detained in an occupied territory in August 2023 and subsequently lost contact with her family. Later, a ULAG lawyer joined the case under a legal assistance agreement with the missing woman’s relatives. The criminal proceedings established that she had been detained by unidentified individuals, held in occupied territory, and later deported to Russia, where she was held in detention without any recognised procedural status.
During the investigation, it became necessary to interrogate a witness who had also been detained in Russia and had shared a cell with the woman for several months. After her release, the witness agreed to testify, as her account could help clarify the fates of other detainees. Due to her critical health condition, it was essential to preserve her testimony for future use. The ULAG lawyer initiated the procedure for her interrogation at the pre-trial investigation stage in a court hearing.
Procedure under the CPC of Ukraine
During the trial phase, courts directly examine the collected evidence. As a general rule, statements given by victims and witnesses during the investigation are not considered unless these individuals are summoned to court, where both the court and parties to the case have equal opportunity to ask questions and confirm the information established during the investigation.
However, in exceptional cases, Article 225 of the CPC of Ukraine allows for the interrogation of a witness during the pre-trial investigation in court. Such a decision may be made if there is a threat to the life or health of the witness or if the witness has a serious illness — i.e. reasons that may later prevent the person from participating in court hearings. In such cases, the interrogation is conducted by an investigating judge in the presence of the prosecution. Defence participation is optional if no suspicion has been formally notified in the case.
Although the court may later examine such statements directly, this does not prevent the court from summoning the witness again to clarify their testimony. In practice, this mechanism is sometimes criticised for not allowing the defence to question the witness.
Timing of the Interrogation
Expectation: A key right of a victim in criminal proceedings is the right to be heard. This means not only being able to provide important information for the investigation, but also that justice actors must have the appropriate procedural tools to record that information properly.
Practice: In the case described, the court scheduled a one-hour hearing for the witness interrogation. This was consistent with the general scheduling practices of judges, who work under heavy caseloads. Judges must plan their calendars in advance, meaning the parties must adapt to the dates and formats offered by the court.
However, it became clear that one hour was insufficient to obtain all the necessary information. The judge grew irritated as there were many questions to ask and much information the prosecution expected to gather. The judge pressured the prosecutor and the witness, repeatedly interrupting and criticising the line of questioning. As a result, the entire session was tense, negatively affecting the witness.
Judges, unlike investigators and prosecutors who work on a case continuously, are more narrowly focused on establishing the guilt of specific individuals. It is therefore unrealistic to expect a judge to devote four to five hours of their working day to a single witness interrogation, as investigators or prosecutors might do.
Focus of the Interrogation
Expectation: The nature of grave international crimes requires establishing not only the immediate facts, but also the context of the armed conflict (in the case of war crimes) and the broader systemic policies behind them (in crimes against humanity). Victims’ and eyewitnesses’ testimonies are often the primary sources for identifying perpetrators, timelines, and locations.
Practice: The interrogation was intended to obtain general context useful to the investigation. Instead, it was limited to identifying possible perpetrators. The judge restricted the prosecutor’s questions about general circumstances, deeming them irrelevant.
One key feature of criminal cases related to the armed conflict is their large scale: numerous victims and extended timeframes. Thus, victims in one case may also be witnesses in others — for example, in proceedings concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against national security. Information about places of detention, the fate of others, and potential perpetrators is often relevant across multiple investigations.
In practice, victims and witnesses are required to participate in all such proceedings where their information may be helpful. Being interrogated once does not guarantee that a person will not be summoned again in other proceedings. It is important to streamline evidence collection to avoid re-traumatising witnesses with repeated questioning.
Working with the Witness
Expectation: A core principle in handling cases involving grave international crimes is a victim-centred approach. This includes safeguarding the victim’s rights to security, physical and mental integrity, and minimising the risk of re-traumatisation throughout the process. All participants in criminal proceedings must uphold this principle and treat victims with respect.
Practice: In this case, the witness was negatively affected by the tense courtroom environment and the judge’s questioning style. After the hearing, the witness felt that her story was not heard or valued — that her account was irrelevant to the investigation or to clarifying the fate of others who had been detained with her.
Dealing with victims and witnesses of serious international crimes requires tailored communication approaches. A victim-centred approach should be used at every stage to make the justice process less traumatic. Victims and witnesses may not fully understand the legal processes, and each interrogation forces them to relive traumatic experiences. It is crucial that their interaction with justice actors does not leave them feeling dismissed or devalued — otherwise, they may refuse further participation in proceedings altogether.
Conclusions
The effectiveness of criminal proceedings is determined not only by legal frameworks, but by how mechanisms function in practice — especially in cases involving the gravest international crimes. These proceedings demand not just legal tools, but close attention to victims’ lived experiences.
The interrogation of victims or witnesses under Article 225 of the CPC is one such tool: it allows for the preservation of testimony and reduces the risk of re-traumatisation. Yet the effectiveness of this mechanism depends on its implementation — on how the court structures the process, how participants communicate, and whether the system truly respects the rights and dignity of those who have already suffered.