CCU: Detention without an alternative violates the equality and dignity of military personnel

When it comes to restrictions on freedom, a person cannot be placed in a less favorable procedural position solely because of the fact that they have performed military service. Therefore, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision regarding mandatory pretrial detention is significant in that it found a violation of equality and human dignity.

This was stated by a member of the UNBA Committee on the protection of victims of armed aggression against Ukraine, compensation mechanisms and European integration legal support for recovery Anastasia Burkovska, while commenting on Decision No. 4-r(II)/2026 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated June 24, 2026, regarding the constitutional complaint filed by Serhiy Hnezdilov. The advocate represented the petitioner in this case.

The subject of the review was Part 8 of Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, during martial law, provided exclusively for pretrial detention of military personnel suspected or accused of committing certain military criminal offenses.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled this provision unconstitutional, deferring its repeal for three months. The Court concluded that the mandatory application of the most severe preventive measure does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for a reasoned judicial decision as a result of judicial discretion.

In the text of the decision, the Court noted that judicial discretion was so restricted that the judicial decision could have only one possible outcome for the legal situation at hand. Under such circumstances, the investigating judge or the court was deprived of the opportunity to administer justice in a reasoned and fair manner regarding the selection of a preventive measure.

«This decision goes beyond the assessment of a single procedural rule. The Constitutional Court reiterated that even during martial law, issues concerning individual liberty cannot be resolved in advance by the law alone. If a court is unable to assess the circumstances of a specific case, the risks involved, and the character of the suspect or defendant, then the right to judicial protection becomes a mere formality», - noted A. Burkovska.

According to her, the Constitutional Court’s conclusion regarding the equality of military personnel before the law is of particular significance. The court found that there was no objective or reasonable basis for singling out a group of military personnel for whom the legislature had established only the most severe preventive measure.

«Military service cannot be a basis for lowering the standard of judicial protection, - the advocate asserted. - Every person for whom the issue of pretrial detention is being decided has the right to an individual assessment».

The Constitutional Court also linked the contested regulation to an infringement on the human dignity of military personnel. The Court emphasized that adherence to constitutional guarantees of human dignity is particularly important when it comes to individuals who fulfill a high constitutional role under martial law.

«For a military servicemember, just as for any other person, a preventive measure is not a punishment and cannot be a consequence solely of status or the classification of an offense. The Constitutional Court’s decision brings the focus back to the individual, their conduct during the proceedings, the risks involved, and the circumstances of the case. This is the essence of judicial protection in matters of freedom», - concluded A. Burkovska.