A corruption-related criminal case goes through several stages — from pre-trial investigation by the NABU, to trial on the merits and judgment, appeal, cassation, and in some cases, review based on newly discovered or exceptional circumstances. We have described most of these in a separate piece. But the court proceedings, which begin once the indictment is submitted to the court and last until a judgment is delivered, have their own distinct stages. Cases are not considered in arbitrary order but follow a strictly defined procedure. Here we explain how it works.
Why does this matter?
The trial is the central stage of any criminal case. Here, the key issue is decided: whether a person is guilty or not. The court’s task is to establish all the circumstances of the case, verify the evidence, and evaluate the arguments of both sides. This is the moment when one can see how lawful and substantiated the investigative authorities’ actions were, how convincingly the prosecution presents its position, and what arguments the defense puts forward.
During the trial, all factual circumstances are finally established, evidence is examined, and witnesses are questioned — all of which enable the court to deliver a reasoned and fair decision.
As a rule, a trial in the first instance consists of the following stages.
Preparatory court hearing
The consideration of a corruption case in the HACC begins with a preparatory hearing. Its purpose is to create the conditions for an objective and comprehensive review of the case. At this stage, the court must verify whether all requirements for starting the trial on the merits are met, consider motions from the parties, and resolve various procedural issues. For example, the court may approve the list of witnesses or decide whether the proceedings will be open or closed.
Based on the results of the preparatory hearing, the court may decide to:
- close the criminal proceedings
- return the indictment to the prosecutor
- approve or refuse to approve a plea agreement
- refer the case to another court based on jurisdiction
- proceed to trial on the merits
- hold the proceedings in closed session, etc.
The length of this stage depends on the complexity of the case, the number of participants, and their procedural conduct. Sometimes it is completed in one or two hearings; other times it may drag on for months or even years.
Beginning of the trial
Once the preparatory stage is over, the case proceeds to trial on the merits. The court checks the attendance of all participants, announces the composition of the bench, explains the rights of recusal, the rights and obligations of the defendant and other participants, and ensures that everyone understands them. After these preliminaries, the presiding judge declares the trial open.
The trial begins with the prosecutor reading out a brief version of the indictment. The presiding judge then explains the essence of the charges to the defendant(s) and asks whether they understand them, whether they plead guilty, and whether they wish to testify.
Afterwards, both the prosecution and the defense deliver their opening statements, outlining their positions. The court then establishes the order of examining evidence and moves on to the substantive hearing, which also includes several stages.
Examination of evidence and questioning of participants
At this stage, the court thoroughly examines all the circumstances of the case. The prosecutor presents evidence gathered during the pre-trial investigation: records of investigative actions, photo and video materials, documents, and expert opinions. The defense has the right to submit and present its own evidence as well. Both sides may comment on the relevance and admissibility of the evidence.
The next step is the questioning of witnesses — first by the prosecution, then by the defense. After the witnesses, the defendant may testify, present their version of events, and answer questions from the prosecutor and defense counsel, or refuse to answer under Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Judges may also pose additional questions to the defendant.
Closing arguments and the last word
At the end of the trial, the parties proceed to court debates, where the prosecutor and defense sum up their positions and present final arguments. They may then respond to each other’s remarks.
The final stage before judgment is the defendant’s last word — their opportunity to address the court without being questioned. This is the last step before the judges retire to the chambers to evaluate all arguments and evidence and deliver a judgment. Afterwards, the court reconvenes, and the judgment is announced — establishing whether the person is guilty or not guilty.
***
On paper, this process may seem straightforward, but in reality it is often not. More often than not, cases drag on for years for various reasons, and sometimes proceedings must be suspended and restarted. Corruption cases are typically complex, involving extensive documentation and numerous witnesses. Procedural violations may allow a guilty person to escape liability due to formal shortcomings.
High-level corruption cases also attract significant public attention. Citizens expect justice to be delivered fairly, transparently, and within a reasonable time, with all participants acting lawfully.
That is why experts at Transparency International Ukraine have been monitoring the consideration of such cases for six years in a row. Our monitoring helps identify systemic problems and propose solutions. This contributes to improving the quality of justice and strengthening public confidence in the judiciary. You can read the results of the sixth stage of monitoring the HACC’s work at the link.