The Case
In March 2022, during the occupation of Mykhailivka-Rubezhivka (Buchanskyi district, Kyiv region), three local residents — Volodymyr Uzbek, Stefan Slabynskyi and Andriy Olifiyets — according to the investigation:
- cooperated with the Russian military;
- handed over looted property to the occupiers;
- provided the enemy with stolen cars (Toyota Rav4, Jaguar);
- used these cars to transport weapons and ammunition;
- They used violence against locals who refused to cooperate with the Russian army.
All three are charged with:
- Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — treason;
- Part 3 of Article 289 — illegal seizure of transport;
- Part 2 of Article 125 — causing bodily harm.
What did the court decide?
March 25, 2025 Kyiv-Svyatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv Region (presiding judge — Oleksandr Hryshko) made a decision that contradicts common sense and the requirements of the law:
- The preventive measure in the form of detention was maintained, but with an alternative - bail of UAH 908,400 for each of the accused.
This is — maximum allowable deposit amount, however, under martial law, in accordance with Part 6 of Article 176 of the CPC, such an opportunity should be excluded for cases related to treason.
Signs of a case merger
Although formally the prosecutor Gorozhankin D.O. demanded continued detention, the participants in the process record a number of actions that indicate deliberate weakening of the prosecution:
- public prosecutor did not maintain an active position in court — did not ask questions, did not comment on the risks;
- refused to attach photo evidence, despite the court's direct remark, and later this photo ended up with the accused;
- informally greeted and talked with the accused;
- publicly stated that does not see their actions as constituting treason, which contradicts his own indictment.
These actions are a violation of Articles 22 and 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which oblige the prosecutor to ensure effective presentation of the charges in the interests of the state and the victims.
Violation of the rights of victims and witnesses
Lack of victim notification
Victim (a citizen who has been physically injured and whose property has been stolen) was not notified about the meeting regarding the change of the preventive measure. Although:
- earlier he was regularly connected online to meetings;
- the court had a duty to inform the victim in accordance with Articles 55–56 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine;
- did not receive his position on the level of risks, which were repeatedly confirmed during the process.
The position of the applicant-witness
Elena Garna:
- there are the applicant in the case from the first days of de-occupation;
- presented evidence and reported threats and assault (there are certificates, applications, materials);
- despite this, did not receive victim status, which violates her procedural rights;
- materials provided by her were handed over to the accused party — without her knowledge.
This violates the rules Articles 66 and 138 of the CPC — guarantees for the protection of witnesses and victims, especially in situations where there is a risk of physical harm or retaliation.
The position of the "Lawmaker"
This is — not just a miscarriage of justice. This is a precedent that legalizes schemes to release collaborators for money.
During a full-scale war, when part of Ukraine is still under occupation, release of those accused of treason for 900 thousand hryvnias — this is not only a legal but also a moral catastrophe.
We demand:
Restoring a fair trial — taking into account the rights of victims, witnesses, and real threats.
Public clarification from the Office of the Prosecutor Generalwhy the prosecutor did not act in the protection of the state interest.
Assessments of the actions of Prosecutor Gorozhankin Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors.
Establishing the procedural status of a victim for the applicant-witness Elena Garna.
Investigation into the leak of case materials to the prosecution.