Vitaliy Chumak, an attorney at ETERNIX Law Firm, participated in an interagency roundtable discussion on the standardization and systematization of materials in criminal proceedings
Vitalii Chumak, Attorney at ETERNIX Law Firm, took part in an interagency roundtable dedicated to the unification and systematisation of materials in criminal proceedings.
The event brought together representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) and the Supreme Court, as well as members of the legal and academic communities.
The discussion was both dynamic and professional, focusing on delays in court proceedings and the absence of a unified standard for presenting evidence.
During the discussion, SAPO representatives raised concerns that the defence may contribute to delays in proceedings or abuse procedural rights. At the same time, Vitalii Chumak highlighted an important practical aspect of the issue.
In most criminal proceedings, the prosecution holds the principal body of evidence. During the pre-trial investigation, the defence often has only limited access to case materials — typically restricted to documents submitted in support of applications for preventive measures. Requests for broader access to the case file are frequently denied.
At the same time, once the materials are disclosed pursuant to Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the defence may receive a substantial volume of case files while being expected to review them within a relatively short period.
Under such circumstances, allegations of systematic abuse of procedural rights by the defence are, at the very least, questionable. Procedural efficiency cannot be achieved without the proper and good-faith performance of procedural obligations by the pre-trial investigation authorities.
Particular emphasis was placed on the fundamental principle that must remain at the centre of any discussion on optimising the examination and presentation of evidence — the rights of the accused.
The right to a fair trial must remain the priority. The speed of proceedings cannot become an end in itself.
Effective optimisation of criminal proceedings is possible only where a proper balance of interests is maintained and the adversarial principle remains a genuine procedural safeguard rather than a mere formality.
