On 6 October in Warsaw, the annual ten-day Warsaw Human Dimension Conference 2025 (OSCE) began, focusing on human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy, and the rule of law.

On 10 October, the OSCE website, in the section “Plenary session 5: Rule of Law II”, published a statement by the respected Belgian human-rights organisation HRWF: Ukraine’s Ailing Judiciary: Dr Oleg Maltsev Over a Year in Odesa Pre-Trial Detention.

The report analyses the dire condition of Ukraine’s ailing judiciary, using as an example the gross violations committed by five judges of the Prymorskyi Court of Odesa and the Odesa Court of Appeal (likely under pressure from certain SBU officers), which have resulted in the Ukrainian scholar Oleg Maltsev and six of his colleagues being held for over twelve months in Odesa SIZO without the possibility of bail, on a fabricated criminal case.

The verbatim statement by the Belgian organization HRWF is reproduced below.

CIO.WHDC.CS/0087/25/EN 
10 October 2025

Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l

Avenue d’Auderghem 61/16, 1040 Brussels

Email: international.secretariat.brussels@hrwf.org – Website: https://hrwf.eu

No Entreprise: 0473.809.960

Ukraine’s Ailing Judiciary: Dr Oleg Maltsev Over a Year in Odesa Pre-Trial Detention

(October 2025)

Contents

1. Introduction and Context
2. Purpose and Scope of This Statement
3. Assessment Framework (ICCPR, ECHR, Mandela Rules) 
4. Methodological Note and Neutrality
5. Case Study: Dr Oleg Maltsev

5.1. Arrest, Detention in SIZO, and Health Concerns
5.2. Charges and Evidentiary Basis (EUASU videos; expert opinions) 
5.3. Defence Position on Fabrication and Freedom of Expression

6. Actions of Judge Dmytro Osiik (13 September 2024)
6.1. Pre-Trial Detention Without Bail
6.2. Medical Fitness for Custody (defence position)
6.3. Competence of Medical Opinion Relied Upon (defence position)

7. Appeal Proceedings
7.1. Late May 2025 Extension at First Instance
7.2. Non-Hearing of Appeals in June–July (defence position) 
7.3. End-July Renewal at First Instance
7.4. Context: Arrest of Defence Counsel (April 2025)

8. Episodes Concerning Judge Yurii Kryvokhyzha
8.1. Jurisdiction over Foreign National Sergey Engelmann
8.2. Inability to Specify the Alleged Unlawful Act (28 September 2025) 
8.3. Extension of Detention in Absence of Counsel (6 October 2025)

9. Conclusion
10. Endnotes
11. References and Sources

1. Introduction and Context

Systemic shortcomings in Ukraine’s judiciary are not new; they have been documented by domestic and international observers over many years [1]. Since the start of the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation, the strain under which courts, investigators and prosecutors operate has inevitably grown, and long-standing vulnerabilities have become more acute. In this environment, safeguarding fair-trial guarantees, judicial independence and access to effective remedies is both more difficult and more essential [2].

On 12 August 2025, the U.S. Department of State published its 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine. A routine report could easily have been lost amid the hundreds of materials and reviews published every month describing the situation in Ukraine, were it not for one point. It contains uncomfortable facts that are not commonly spoken of aloud today. In particular, the release includes credible reports of arbitrary arrests or detentions; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists; the unwarranted arrest or prosecution of journalists; and censorship [3].

A similar assessment appeared in earlier U.S. State Department reporting, which observed that, while the constitution provided for an independent judiciary, courts were inefficient and remained highly vulnerable to political pressure and corruption [4].

This is neither propaganda nor an adversarial narrative. It is an assessment produced by one of Ukraine’s principal allies and partners, the United States. By drawing attention to systemic risks affecting core rights protections in Ukraine, the State Department’s report offers a credible, third- party perspective and a basis for constructive scrutiny.

2. Purpose and Scope of This Statement

This statement does not seek to rehearse general concerns in the abstract. Rather, it sets out a case study designed to illuminate how systemic pressures may manifest in concrete proceedings. It considers the criminal prosecution of Ukrainian scholar Dr Oleg Maltsev, who has been held in Odesa pre-trial detention (SIZO) for over a year. The statement focuses on issues that, taken cumulatively and as alleged by the defence, raise questions about the effectiveness of judicial safeguards in practice: the proportionality and necessity of continued remand without bail; the evaluation of evidence and expert opinions; the handling of medical documentation and fitness-for-custody assessments; and the timeliness and enforceability of court decisions [5].

Every systemic problem has individual decision-makers. Using the criminal prosecution of the Ukrainian scholar Dr Oleg Maltsev as a case study, we will set out case-specific concerns involving five judges whose actions, as alleged by the defence and recorded in filings, raise questions about claims of impartiality and judicial independence in Ukraine.

• Judge Yurii Andriiovych Kryvokhyzha — Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa (Кривохижа Юрій Андрійович).
• Judge Yulian Ivanovych Kravets — Odesa Court of Appeal (Кравець Юліан Іванович).
• Judge Ihor Anatoliiovych Artemenko, President of the Odesa Court of Appeal (Артеменко Ігор Анатолійович).
• Judge Oleksandr Hennadiiovych Zhuravlov — Odesa Court of Appeal (Журавльов Олександр Геннадійович).
• Judge Dmytro Valeriiovych Osiik — Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa (Осіік Дмитро Валерійович).

3. Assessment Framework

The analysis proceeds with reference to Ukraine’s obligations under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the ICCPR (liberty and security, humane treatment, fair-trial guarantees), Articles 18 and 19 ICCPR (freedom of thought, conscience and expression) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), particularly the principles of equivalence and continuity of medical care. European standards—including Article 5 ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., Buzadji v Moldova [GC])—underscore that pre-trial detention is exceptional; as time passes, a presumption in favour of release strengthens, and continued custody must be justified by relevant and sufficient reasons, with less-restrictive alternatives seriously considered [6].

4. Methodological Note and Neutrality

The materials summarised herein draw on court records, defence submissions, independent expert reports (including a Ministry of Justice forensic linguistic opinion), medical documentation and publicly available statements by civil-society organisations. Where allegations are made, they are identified as such; all officials and institutions named below are entitled to the presumption of innocence and a right of reply. Personally identifiable information not essential to the assessment has been limited or redacted.

5. Case Study: Dr Oleg Maltsev

5.1. Arrest, Detention in SIZO, and Health Concerns

Maltsev was arrested on September 12, 2024. For over a year he has remained in SIZO without bail despite the deterioration of his health for which he does not receive appropriate treatment [7] and actually driven to death, according to his lawyer, Yevheniia Tarasenko.

Returning from an Italian research expedition in December 2023, Maltsev already knew that criminal proceedings had been initiated against him in Ukraine. He knew the name of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officer who had launched the case and was even aware that anonymous individuals had emailed his lawyer’s official address offering to “settle” and close the matter for money [7]. He could have chosen not to return to Ukraine and to avoid the risk of an arrest. Instead, he decided to go back home and to resolve the issue lawfully, because he knew he had done nothing wrong but this was not enough.

5.2. Charges and Evidentiary Basis (EUASU videos; expert opinions)

In May 2024 SBU officers initiated criminal proceedings, which enabled the Ukrainian authorities to detain Maltsev on 12 September and to remand him to SIZO without bail, where he has remained for more than 12 months.

The arrest was grounded in an expert examination of the videos in which Dr Maltsev conducts meetings with EUASU staff [7]. In other words, the reason for the Ukrainian scholar’s prolonged detention in SIZO is the interpretation by a research unit subordinate to the SBU of his words expressing his opinion and views.

Two articles of the criminal code are imputed to him by the SBU:

• Article 109 – Conspiracy aimed at the violent overthrow of the constitutional order and the seizure of state power;
• Article 260 – Creation of an unlawful paramilitary formation. Why such accusations? On which basis?

5.3. Defence Position on Fabrication and Freedom of Expression

The defence maintains that the criminal case is entirely fabricated and that the academic is being prosecuted for the expression of his opinions.

While on a European research expedition, Maltsev convened an online meeting at which he presented to the staff of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EUASU) a plan of action in case Russian forces would enter Odesa. In particular, he questioned whether the security services would be able to protect Odesa’s residents in the event of an occupation. For example, according to The Washington Post, by early Wednesday, 2 March 2022 [8], no Ukrainian police or government forces were visible in the centre of Kherson. Moreover, in a recent interview, former Kherson mayor Volodymyr Mykolayenko explicitly stated that as early as 24 February 2022 there were already no police, no military, and no SBU present in the city [9]. “Kherson was left without those who should have defended it,” he said. “By the evening of 24 February, there were no police, no army, and no SBU. Among those who truly stood up to defend the city, I only saw patrol policemen.”

A similar scenario looked realistic for Odesa in the spring of 2022 and this probably did not please some local authorities. After the urgent withdrawal of the authorities and security forces, residents could have been left face-to-face with the occupiers, lootings and robberies were also anticipated. A plan was therefore proposed whereby the EUASU staff would provide for their own self-defence and the protection of the population and the Academy’s material and technical base.

Context note (expression & belief): the materials at issue concern conditional, non- public civil-protection planning in spring 2022; as a Jewish scholar, Dr Maltsev’s convictions include a duty—grounded in din rodef (stopping an immediate attacker) as a contextual articulation of belief, not as a call to violence—to protect life and community; any reference to defensive measures was framed only as a last resort and within the bounds of law, consistent with public guidance issued by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (Articles 18 and 19 of the ICCPR, subject to legality, necessity and proportionality).

The defence chose a strategy of rebutting the SBU’s expert report—without which the detention of Dr Maltsev, who is himself a practising lawyer, would have been impossible.

According to the investigation, the members of the allegedly unauthorized paramilitary organization are: scientists (scientific colleagues of Dr. Maltsev from the Research Institute and members of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), housewives, journalists, lawyers and translators. None of these people have ever served in the army and do not have any combat experience. Most of these people are women.

Lawyer Alexander Babikov stressed that there is no evidence of the existence of such a paramilitary formation, a military settlement, a program of military training, or any illegal weapons. The investigation relies only on its own controversial interpretation of a conversation of Dr Maltsev.

“Keeping Dr Oleg Maltsev in custody for over a year without bail is a punitive, not precautionary, measure. By disregarding independent expertise and overlooking signs of prosecutorial corruption, judges risk aligning themselves with politically motivated prosecutions. Such decisions cast a long shadow over their careers — Strasbourg will not forget.”

— Anna Sassu, Italian human rights expert, former Human Rights Watch staff member

On 27 February 2025, Maltsev’s defence received the results of a comprehensive forensic linguistic and semantic-textual examination of the same video recording used by the prosecution to justify Maltsev’s detention [7].

In the expert and forensic opinion of the National Scientific Centre of Forensic Expertise named after Honoured Professor M. S. Bokarius, it was emphasised that Maltsev and his colleagues discussed the organization of self-defence of the office premises and of the academic and teaching staff of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in the event of an armed incursion or an attempt by the armed forces of the Russian Federation to seize Odesa.

As lawyer Babikov pointed out in his interview “according to the investigation, these people were supposed to seize a city of many millions - Odessa, which even after 3 years of war, Russian troops did not dare to do”.

6. Actions of Judge Dmytro Osiik 

6.1. Pre-Trial Detention Without Bail

On 13 September 2024, Judge Dmytro Osiik ordered 60 days’ pre-trial detention without the possibility of bail in respect of Dr Oleg Maltsev.

According to the defence, the court did not take into account official medical records documenting bronchial asthma, diabetes mellitus and obstructive sleep apnoea. The defence further notes that, on the evening of 12 September, the Temporary Detention Facility (IVS) had refused to admit Dr Maltsev due to the seriousness of his conditions; he was brought in a wheelchair, as—while undergoing rehabilitation after a hypertensive crisis—he could scarcely move unaided. Counsel also submits that the court did not address the fact that, following an acute hypertensive crisis on 1 July, Dr Maltsev had been admitted to St Catherine’s Clinic (Odesa) and was undergoing rehabilitation [7].

6.2. Medical Fitness for Custody (defence position)

The prosecution presented a consultative note signed by Dr Yelyzaveta Vadymivna Churylova, Doctor in Emergency Medicine, stating that Dr Maltsev could be held in custody. The defence argues that, even without a special forensic medical examination, the court could reasonably have concluded that an assessment of fitness for detention required a multi-disciplinary medical conclusion, rather than reliance on a single emergency-medicine note [7].

6.3. Competence of Medical Opinion Relied Upon (defence position)

Defence counsel Yevheniia Tarasenko reports that, in September 2025, responses from Odesa City Clinical Hospital No. 1 (“Jewish Hospital”) indicated that Dr Churylova was not authorised under her duties to issue the type of clearance relied upon, and therefore lacked competence to make such determinations. On this basis, the defence characterises the document as ultra vires. Counsel also states that SBU officers were present outside the courtroom at the time the detention decision was handed down.

Defence position on early judicial practice (13 September 2024).
According to the defence, Judge Osiik’s actions on 13 September 2024 exemplified, in practice, the approach later allegedly articulated by Prosecutor Ruslan Voitov in an off-the-record exchange with advocate Olha Panchenko: namely, that in the absence of evidence, the authorities would use administrative leverage to keep Dr Oleg Maltsev and his colleagues in custody.

7. Alleged Sabotage of the Appeal: Judges Artemenko, Zhuravlov and Kravets

7.1. Late May 2025 Extension at First Instance

At the end of May 2025, Judge Yurii Andriiovych Kryvokhyzha of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa again extended the measure of restraint for Dr Oleg Maltsev and his colleagues, ordering continued pre-trial detention without the possibility of bail.

7.2. Non-Hearing of Appeals in June–July (defence position)

After the defence filed an appeal against that decision, the Odesa Court of Appeal held no hearing in June or July. The formal reasons cited included air-raid alerts and technical difficulties in connecting counsel by video-conference—although, according to the defence, the necessary facilities were in fact available. The appeal was adjourned three times and never proceeded. The defence contends this amounted to deliberate sabotage intended to frustrate the statutory time-limits for hearing the appeal.

7.3. End-July Renewal at First Instance

As a result, at the end of July a further hearing took place in the court of first instance, where Judge Kryvokhyzha again extended the pre-trial detention of Dr Maltsev and his colleagues for a further 60 days.

7.4. Context: Arrest of Defence Counsel (April 2025)

The defence notes that the alleged obstruction by Judges Ihor Anatoliiovych Artemenko, Oleksandr Hennadiiovych Zhuravlov and Yulian Ivanovych Kravets occurred against the backdrop of the high-profile arrest of Dr Maltsev’s lawyer, advocate Olha Panchenko.

• On 15 April 2025, seven months after Ms Panchenko had formally become defence counsel to Dr Maltsev, SBU officers, together with the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office, searched her home and detained her within the very criminal proceedings in which she was acting as counsel. She was formally notified of suspicion under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“creation of an unlawful paramilitary or armed group”), and the prosecution sought remand in custody without bail.
• The notice of suspicion served on Ms Panchenko bore the signature of the Head of the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office but did not include a date, which the defence cites as further evidence of procedural irregularity.
• On 16 April 2025, the Ukrainian Bar Council (Council of Advocates of Ukraine) met to consider submitting a formal request to the Verkhovna Rada to establish a Temporary Investigative Commission (Article 89 of the Constitution). According to statements by the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA), this was prompted by the high-profile incident in Odesa, where advocate Olha Panchenko—a member of the UNBA Committee for the Protection of Lawyers’ Professional Rights and of the Odesa regional committee—was unlawfully detained in the course of her professional duties
• On 17 April 2025, the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa ordered Ms Panchenko’s pre-trial detention without bail; on 25 April 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and granted bail of UAH 60,560 [10], securing her release.

Comparative treatment (defence observation).
For scale: Ms Panchenko spent 10 days in custody (15–25 April 2025) before being released on bail, whereas Dr Maltsev’s colleagues—charged on the same articles—have been held without bail for more than 12 months. The defence submits that this disparity is difficult to reconcile with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Defence assessment of motive.
According to the defence, the alleged sabotage by Judges Artemenko, Kravets and Zhuravlov stemmed from a reluctance to jeopardise relations with SBU officers. In the wake of the scandal surrounding Ms Panchenko’s arrest and her subsequent release on bail, the judges, it is argued, understood that they would likely have to release a significant proportion (reportedly up to 80%) of Dr Maltsev’s co-defendants, who face the same charges as advocate Panchenko. Such an outcome, the defence maintains, would have run counter to the interests of certain SBU officials, whom the defence alleges to be the driving actors behind a commissioned, politically motivated case.

8. Themis is blindfolded but she must still hear: gross violations by Judge Kryvokhyzha

In the conduct of Judge Yurii Andriiovych Kryvokhyzha of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa, the defence observes several episodes that amount to gross breaches of the Criminal Procedure Code and disregard for the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

8.1. Jurisdiction over Foreign National Sergey Engelmann

Background. Sergey Engelmann, a German national and Editor-in-Chief of World of Martial Arts, did not reside permanently in Ukraine. He collaborated with Dr Oleg Maltsev and co-founded the Research Institute for the Study of Human Behaviour in Extreme Conditions. On 14 October 2024, while travelling to visit family in Cologne, he was detained at the border and charged under Article 260 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“participation in an unlawful paramilitary group”). The charge rests on the same EUASU academic meeting and on a linguistic opinion by SBU expert Iryna Loeva—even though Mr Engelmann was in Germany at the time of the 2022 meeting and did not attend.

Why can Engelmann not be tried?

On 19 March 2025, during a court hearing, defence counsel Mr Babikov submitted a motion arguing that Mr Engelmann, as a subject, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian courts [11]. From the hearing record:

“The indictment alleges that Sergey Engelmann committed the charged offence only between 20 April and 5 May 2022 and cites no acts thereafter.

Official Border Guard data (17 Apr 2024) show Mr Engelmann left Ukraine on 20 Feb 2022 and returned on 14 May 2022, i.e., he was outside Ukraine for the entire alleged period.

Under Article 8(3) of the Criminal Code, Ukraine may prosecute a foreign national for extraterritorial acts only in narrowly defined cases (e.g., corruption, crimes against national security, international crimes).

None of the offences imputed to Mr Engelmann falls within these exceptions; therefore, there are no legal grounds to hold him criminally liable in Ukraine if all actions occurred abroad.”

Despite the above circumstances and the clear provision of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, Mr Engelmann has been held for about a year in SIZO, without the possibility of bail.

8.2. Inability to Specify the Alleged Unlawful Act (28 September 2025)

At the hearing on 28 September 2025, after the prosecutor had read out the indictment, Judge Kryvokhyzha was unable to answer a question from the accused, Ms Maryna Ilyusha—a young scholar, Director of the Institute of Fate Analysis, and a pupil of Dr Maltsev—namely: what exactly she had done, by what actions, under what circumstances, and when precisely. A video excerpt of the hearing was posted on Facebook and gathered more than 150,000 views [12]. It is self-evident that if, within the proceedings, a judge cannot clarify to the accused the time and place of the alleged offence, then the elements of the offence—and thus criminal prosecution—are absent. Nevertheless, Judge Kryvokhyzha continues to keep Ms Ilyusha and her colleagues in custody. What is this, if not an exercise of “administrative resource” of the kind Prosecutor Voitov himself referred to?

8.3. Extension of Detention in Absence of Counsel (6 October 2025)

On 6 October 2025, Judge Yurii Andriiovych Kryvokhyzha of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa committed a flagrant breach of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the hearing on the application of preventive measures to the German citizen, Mr Sergey Engelmann, a technical failure occurred: the connection with defence counsel Mr Babikov—participating by video link— was lost. Notwithstanding the lawyer’s absence, Judge Kryvokhyzha not only proceeded with the hearing but also decided to extend Mr Engelmann’s pre-trial detention. Such conduct directly contravenes point 4 of part 2 of Article 52 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which makes the participation of defence counsel mandatory in respect of persons who do not have command of the Ukrainian language (in this case, the citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr Engelmann).

Taken together, these and other episodes make it clear that impartiality on the part of Judge Kryvokhyzha is out of the question. Whether he is driven by fear of the SBU, by compromising material held by the security services, or by a desire to ingratiate himself with them is immaterial. The gross violations in Judge Kryvokhyzha’s conduct demonstrate his unfitness to discharge judicial duties within Ukraine’s justice system.

9. Conclusion

This case study—limited to the materials available to the authors at the time of writing—suggests the risk of systemic non-compliance with fair-trial guarantees in Odesa-region proceedings involving Dr Oleg Maltsev and co-accused. The cumulative effect of (i) prolonged pre-trial detention without bail, (ii) reliance on disputed expert opinions, (iii) contested fitness-for-custody assessments, and (iv) delays or adjournments at appeal level appears difficult to reconcile with Articles 5 ECHR and 9/14 ICCPR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., Buzadji v. Moldova [GC]) [13].

The judiciary is sick in Ukraine, including in Odesa, and must be healed if the country wants to be accepted in the European Union. Many accuse Ukraine of corruption, but we see that the problem of this country is not so much corruption as the inability of Ukrainian judges to go against the will of the SBU.

Upholding procedural fairness in difficult times is not a concession but a constitutional duty; timely, reasoned decisions are the surest defence of the judiciary’s legitimacy. If Ukraine is serious about EU accession, judicial conduct and court practice must be brought into clear alignment with European standards and the ECHR—impartial adjudication, consistent application of the CPC, effective remedies for rights violations, and real accountability for departures from the law.

10. Endnotes

1. European Commission, Ukraine 2024 Report (Chapter on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights), 30 Oct 2024: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1924a044-b30f-48a2-99c1-50edeac14da1_en

2. Contextual OHCHR country updates on rule of law during the full-scale invasion: https://www.ohchr.org/

3. U.S. Department of State, 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine (12 Aug 2025): https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine ; PDF: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/624521-UKRAINE-2024-HUMAN- RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf

4. U.S. Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine/

5. Willy Fautré, “Ukraine’s Sick Judiciary: Academic Held in Odesa in Pre-trial Detention for over a Year,” The European Times, 20 September 2025, available at: https://europeantimes.news/2025/09/ukraine-judiciary-academic-odesa-pre-trial-detention/

6. Legal standards: ICCPR (OHCHR): https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights; Mandela Rules (UNODC e-book): https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison- reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf; ECtHR (GC) Buzadji v. Moldova (HUDOC): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-164928

7. Maltsev.wiki, “Case Documents and Sources (repository),” Maltsev.wiki (official site), available at: https://maltsev.wiki/en

8. Context sources on Kherson (2 Mar 2022): The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/02/ukraine-battlefield-military-offensive- kherson/

9. Volodymyr Mykolayenko, “Former Kherson Mayor Volodymyr Mykolayenko: Three and a Half Years in Russian Captivity,” UATV (English), 17 September 2025, available at: https://uatv.ua/en/former-kherson-mayor-volodymyr-mykolayenko-three-and-a-half-years-in- russian-captivity/

10. Громадський Прибій [in Ukrainian], “Перемога у справі адвокатки Ольги Панченко: вона вийшла на волю,” 25 April 2025, available at: https://www.priboi.news/uk/suspilno-vazhlyve/peremoga-u-spravi-advokatki-olgi-panchenko-vona-vijshla-na-volyu/

11. Zlochiny.com [in Russian], “Казнить нельзя помиловать: или как в Украине судят иностранца, которого нельзя судить,” n.d., available at: https://zlochiny.com/kaznit-nelzya-pomilovat-ili-kak-v-ukraine-sudyat-inostrancza-kotorogo-nelzya-sudit-2815/

12. Facebook (Reel), “Court hearing excerpt: Judge Kryvokhyzha and Maryna Ilyusha — inability to specify alleged act,” video, n.d., available at: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1177937441055902/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

13. Reiteration of legal standards: ECtHR Buzadji; ICCPR Arts. 9/14; OSCE/ODIHR Trial Monitoring Manual: https://www.osce.org/odihr/94216; PDF: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/f/94216.pdf

11. References to independent expert assessments, UN reports, NGO findings, and media publications

1. HRC 58 Oral Statement Item 9 Human Rights Ukraine (CAP/Liberté de Conscience, France, 30.03.2025)
2. EUASU Appeal to President Zelenskyy Regarding Dr. Oleg Maltsev Case (“European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, 17.05.2025)
3. Avvocatura ucraina sotto attacco: il significato dell'arresto di Olga Panchenko (“Studiocataldi.it / Legal Daily, 4.05.2025)
4. The Dr. Maltsev Case: A Scientist on the Periphery of the Global Knowledge Order (“Berliner Gazette (BG)”, 19.05.2025)
5. Ukraine, Suspicion of Fabrication of a Criminal Case (“The European Times”, 18.11.2024)
6. Pressioni crescenti sugli avvocati in Ucraina (“Studiocataldi.it / Legal Daily, 17.02.2025)
7. Case of Scientist Dr. Oleg Maltsev: Interview with His Lawyer (“European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, 2.10.2025)
8. Lawyer Olga Panchenko released on bail — a step toward justice (“European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, 26.04.2025)
9. Our editor’s lawyer Alexandr Babikov: “The most puzzling thing was the accusation...which did not specify at all what exactly he had done wrong.” (“World of Martial Arts”, 12.04.2025)
10. Y. Michal Bodemann: The Fabricated Case Against Dr. Oleg Maltsev Is A Stain On Ukraine’s Law Enforcement System (“The Jewish Review”, 14.03.2025)
11. Французский ученый Люсьен Улабиб призвал украинский суд справедливо рассмотреть дело ученого Олега Мальцева (“Общественный Прибой”, 1.05.2025)
12. ООН: дело украинского ученого Олега Мальцева будет тщательно расследовано (“Общественный Прибой”, 16.05.2025)
13. Британський дослідник закликав український суд до справедливого розгляду справи Олега Мальцева (“Общественный Прибой”, 12.05.2025)
14. How Lawyers Oleg Maltsev and Olga Panchenko Were Allegedly Planning to “Take Over” Odessa (“Общественный Прибой”, 7.05.2025)
15. Президент EASU Профессор Джером Крейс о деле академика Мальцева (“Granite of Science”, 13.10.2024)
16. Професор Максим Лепський о звинуваченні академiка Олега Мальцева (“Granite of Science”, 5.10.2024)
17. Почетный профессор Ратгерского университета обратился к украинскому суду по поводу ареста ученого Олега Мальцева (“Granite of Science”, 4.05.2025)
18. Голос науки против несправедливости: обращение Dr. Виталия Лунёва к украинскому суду в защиту Олега Мальцева (“Granite of Science”, 23.05.2025)
19. The Maltsev Case: Arrest And Harassment Of A Jewish Scientist In Ukraine (“TheJewish Review”, 5.10.2024)