>> Male Speaker: I want to introduce the Assistant Law Librarian for Legal Research, Peter Roudik. >> Peter Roudik: Good afternoon. Three months ago, when our partners at the American Association of Law Libraries, Marcelo Rodriguez, from the University of Arizona, and Caitlin Hunter [assumed spelling] from the UCLA suggested that I prepare this webinar, I thought that this war would end soon, and this presentation would end as an analysis of historic events. Unfortunately, today is the 113th day of this horrible war. During the next hour, I will try to describe how these laws and regulations adopted in Russia and Ukraine shortly before and after February 24th, when Russian troops invaded Ukraine, might affect the future developments in these countries. Of course, it's impossible to present the comprehensive analysis of all the relevant legislation in this brief webinar, but I will highlight what I view as the most significant developments. In both countries, legislatures have been working very actively since the war started, and sometimes, they have yielded simplified procedures to expedite the passage of laws. I would like to recognize my colleague, Iyana Framer [assumed spelling], author of many Global Legal Monitor articles on the recent developments in Ukraine for your help with collecting information for this presentation. It is beyond the scope of this presentation to go into the history of the first Kyivan states, which was established in the 9th century, to separate kingdoms ruled by descendants of Kyivan dukes on the territory of present-day Central Russia and endless wars fought through centuries for lines we call now Ukraine between Russia and Poland, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, the United Kingdom, and Germany, just to name a few. Instead, let's first discuss Ukraine, and the Russian Federation in the borders, as they were established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December of 1991. On December 8, 1991, in Minsk, Presidents of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia signed the treaty establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States. Article 5 of that treaty specifically said that "the high contracting parties recognize and respect the territorial integrity of each other and the inviolability of the existing borders within the Commonwealth." That was the beginning of the formal separation among the former Soviet Republics and a pledge for their peaceful coexistence. Assurance of peace and stability in the region were reasons were concluding the Budapest Memorandum in December of 1994. When Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, about 1,900 nuclear warheads were stored on its territory. That made Ukraine the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. According to the Budapest Agreement signed by Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, Ukraine dismantled its nukes in exchange for the commitment of Russia, the United States, and the UK to respect the independence and sovereignty in the existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat, or use of force, against Ukraine. Identical memorandums were signed simultaneously with Belarus and Kazakhstan throughout the former Soviet republics where nuclear arms were stored during Soviet times. So, the same principles of mutual respect, territorial integrity, recognition of current borders, peaceful resolution of disputes, noninterference in internal affairs, and adherence to norms of international law, particularly, are the cornerstones of relations between Ukraine and Russia with the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation of May 31, 1997. The same principles were again confirmed by the Maritime Cooperation Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine signed in 2003. Since the treaty recognizes the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait as internal waters of both countries, provided for free navigation of Russian and Ukrainian vessels, and referred to a set of agreements to establish a sea border and resolve maritime disputes. The Friendship Treaty, which entered into force in 1991, provided that it would automatically renew every 10 years unless one of the parties notified another of its desire to terminate it. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea and establishing control over parts of Eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine announced in 2018 that the Friendship Treaty would not be renewed in April 2019. Some Ukrainian lawyers now advocate to also terminate the Maritime Cooperation Treaty. The Minsk Agreements of September 2014 and February 2015 were two major legal instruments to regulate relations between the two countries in the recent years. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea, parts of the Ukrainian Southeastern Provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which are generally called Donbas, declared their independence from Ukraine, from Moscow-supported governments, and got engaged in a prolonged fight with Ukrainian armed forces to defend their independence from Ukraine. France, Germany, and the Organization for Security and Preparation in Europe negotiated a framework with Russia, Ukraine, and Donbas leaders for a relative ceasefire in the region. The Minsk agreements provided for the withdrawal of heavier weapons [inaudible] consultations on future of the region. The agreements defined how they established a constitutional order in the region, drove elections, adoption of laws regulating the special status of those territories, and there were two other important provisions in these agreements: Restoration of full Ukrainian control over the state border, and removal from Ukrainian territory of foreign troops, and disarmament of all military groups deemed illegal by Russia. Most of the proposed measures remained unfulfilled until the war started last February. As soon as the war -- or as the Russian officials call it, "the special military operation, " started on February 24th, concerns arose that non-conventional weapons would be used in this country. One of the first who called attention to this problem was Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council official. In an interview with Politico last February, she said, "Putin is increasingly reacting emotionally and is likely to use all the weapons at his disposal, including nuclear ones. Every time you think, no, he wouldn't, would he? Well, yes, he would." Hill said. So, let's look at the legal mechanisms regulating the use of nuclear arms in Russia. From the international law perspective, there is not much regulation. While Russia is a party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it strongly opposes the Treaty on the Preservation of Nuclear Weapon, and many disarmament agreements have either expired or don't address nonstrategic arms. Russia's main domestic law in this area is a federal law on the use of nuclear power adopted in 1995. It is a post-Chernobyl law and provides for measures inter-strengthening control over nuclear facilities, preventing security violations, and protecting the victims of nuclear accidents. Since the law regulates the use of arms to some degree, it provides for protecting the sources of nuclear power and bans mass gatherings and public events in the proximity of reactors and storages. All decision making in this field is delegated to the President of Russia. While the law prescribes the authority of cabinet of ministers, regional administrations, and the legislature, these all appear to be nominal. In the summer of 2020, Putin issued a decree titled The Fundamentals of the State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence. It's said that the goal of deploying nuclear arms is to prevent escalation of military actions and termination of war against Russia on conditions favored by the Russian Federation. It doesn't say what institutes an installation. This idea follows the concept of nuclear de-escalation of a conflict, which was formally established in Russia's Naval Doctrine adopted in 2017. The idea is that by demonstrating the decisiveness to use nuclear arms in a military conflict, attacks against Russia can be deterred. The 2020 document justified the use of nuclear weapons in cases when the existence of the Russian state is at risk. There is no mechanism to assess what brings the risk to the existential level. The document states that nuclear arms can be used even against states that don't have nuclear weapons if they have a significant general military potential. The list of threats that can be responded by nuclear arms includes not only proliferation of nuclear technologies, equipment, possession of WMDs that can be used against Russia by a foreign state, but even deployment of missile defense and land-aerial vehicles and high-precision non-nuclear weapons that can attack Russian forces. It is interesting that just a few days before the invasion, Russia conducted an exercise of its forces of strategic deterrence. It was the first time that the media were informed by the Ministry of Defense about this type of exercise in great detail. Also, on third day of the war in Ukraine, Putin ordered to move Russia's strategic nuclear forces to something he called the Special Region of Readiness. Explaining his order on national TV, he said that this was done because leaders of NATO countries keep making aggressive statements against Russia. He also mentioned Western economic sanctions as another reason for heightening the level of nuclear deterrence. Analysts were puzzled what this "special region" means, because this definition was never used before and is not included in the existing system of alert levels. Let's now review, recently, passed legislation in both countries. For this webinar, I divided legislation publicly and decided to look at where the related laws, laws affecting the domestic economy, and laws addressing major rights and freedoms of individuals. As I already said, both legislatures have been very active in the past several months. As reported last week, the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's unicameral legislature, has adopted more than 160 laws during the war period. On this slide, you can see the building in Kyiv where the Rada is working. When the war started, martial law was introduced in the entire territory of Ukraine. After declaring the legal reason of martial law, temporary restrictions on constitutional rights were imposed and civilian authorities were converted into military administrations at all levels of government. Since military administrations include state emergency personnel, representatives of law enforcement agencies, and leaders of military formations located in the territory of the region or district. For military purposes, these administrations are subordinated to the Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian armed forces. For all other issues, they are to follow orders of the Cabinet of Ministers. The President of Ukraine remains the head of the state and conducts strategic oversight of the armed forces during the period of martial law. The legislature cannot be dissolved during this period. If the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires during the period of martial law, it should continue its work until a new legislature is elected after the martial law regime is canceled. The law allows the government to use the capacities and workforce resources of public and private enterprises for defense needs. A curfew can be ordered, and individuals may be subjected to a special screening regime, which means stricter ID checks and inspecting of belongings, vehicles, and residential and business practices. During the period of martial law, it is prohibited to amend the constitution, conduct referendums, organize strikes, and hold public demonstrations, among other measures. So, what gives the government the right to control the media, ban the sale weapons, alcoholic beverages, and other toxic substances, regulate the production of medicines, and seize the radioactive materials? So, what prohibits male citizens of Ukraine ages 18 to 60 from leaving their place of permanent residency without the approval of the local military administration? In May, the martial law regime was extended for another 90-day period. All of the borders control mobilization rules were slightly softened. Stricter punishments for crimes committed during the time of war were added to the existing laws. Life in prison became the punishment for state treason or subversive activities. Terms of imprisonment were extended up to 15 years for looting and stealing in the battlefield. Some misdemeanors were reclassified as felonies. For example, much heavier fines were established for drunk driving. Another bill, which is not enacted yet, proposed to confiscate the car from a drunk driver for the needs of Ukrainian defensive law enforcement. The law on firearms was amended to legalize the distribution of weapons to civilians. These amendments also freed Ukrainian citizens from liability to use firearms against aggressors. Citizens' use of their own sporting or hunting firearms in the fight to defend Ukraine is permitted. The laws criminalizing any type of cooperation with an aggressor state were passed in March. The criminal code of Ukraine was amended by adding the new article and collaboration. Public statements in support of Russia's aggression and dissemination of Russian state propaganda are counted as a form of collaboration. These crimes are punished by 10 to 15 years of imprisonment. In addition, Ukrainians who work in the Russia-created made administrative bodies on occupied territories and who participate in organizing and conducting illegal elections or referendums in these territories are risking being imprisoned for 5 to 10 years. Even harsher punishment of imprisonment of 12 to 15 years may be imposed on Ukrainians who collaborate with Russian judicial or law enforcement agencies or participate in military formations created by Russia in Ukrainian territory. According to Ukrainian prosecutors, over 150 investigations into suspected collaboration with Russian forces have been opened since the law entered into force in March. Investigation of these crimes is conducted under amended rules of criminal procedure, which allow police to perform investigative activities at night in such premises without observation from lay persons. Under the new rules, decisions about searches, seizures, surveillance, and statutory preliminary detention can be made by a prosecutor alone, and not by an investigative judge, as before. The term of initial police detention without a decision of a judge is extended up to nine days. Human rights jurists have expressed concerns about these practices. To ensure the full functioning of the judiciary in emergencies where the court cannot administer justice at its regular location, amendments to the law on the judiciary allow the transfer of all pending cases to the nearest fully functioning court or another court designated as a supreme court. To address warnings, procedural terms in several cases were suspended for the duration of the martial law regime. Changes were made in labor laws also. They simplified the procedure for conducting employment contracts, allowing transfer of employees to other jobs without their consent, provided for the possibility of extending the length work week up to 60 hours, and shortening the weekly time off to 24 hours. On this slide, you can see the building of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian legislature. According to the Constitution, Russian laws should originate there before being sent for approval for the upper chamber, the Federation Council. I have a trivia question for you. What do the Russian Duma and Ukrainian Rada have in common? Well, they both consist of 450 members each. As the new [inaudible] are reported, when the war started, in order to simplify and expedite the passage of proposed amendments, some legislative initiatives were introduced as separate laws but were included in bills that were introduced but not adopted by the state Duma in previous years. Because those bills were discussed in the First Treaty a few years ago already, the legislators didn't need to follow the procedure required for introducing the new bill and were able to bypass the requirement to discuss this bill in the committees or send them for mandatory review by the government. Some legislative proposals were approved by both chambers of the legislature, signed by President Putin, published, and entered into force in just one day. Certification of friendship treaties with the two so-called "self-declared republics" in Eastern Ukraine on February 22nd can be considered as acts supporting the invasion. On the same day, the Federation Council approved Putin's request to deploy Russian troops in these republics, to conduct the so-called "escaping preparations" there. Among other recent amendments to military legislation, I would mention the extension of deferrals for IT personnel from obligatory military conscription and the elimination of the age limit for volunteers applying to serve in the army. Before, a contract for voluntary service in the Army could be assigned by Russians under 40 and foreigners under 30 years of age. Now, anyone up to 65 years of age, which is the retirement age for men in Russia, can enroll in the Russian armed forces. The explanatory note to the bill said that this was done because the Russian military needs trained and educated professionals to operate high-precision weaponry, which level of expertise is achieved usually around 40 or 45 years of age. The day before yesterday, the State Duma approved in the first [inaudible] amendments to the criminal code under which participation in the military conflict against Russian interests while joining enemy forces will be state treason punishable by imprisonment up to 20 years. Addressing the population of the occupied territories, the Decree on Simplified Taxation for Russian Citizenship was issued by President Putin. Residents of the South Ukrainian territories currently under Russian control can express their interest in receiving Russian citizenship and get Russian passports in three months. It was reported that the first Russian passports were distributed to people in Southern Ukraine last week, and payment of salaries and pensions to everybody who lives there is made in rubles. In May, the Prosecutor General requested the Supreme Court of Russia to recognize the Regiment Azov, a unit in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, that became known for leading the defense of Mariupol, as a terrorist organization. Court hearings are scheduled for the end of this month, and if the decision will be made in favor of the prosecution, then each of the prisoners can be tried as a terrorist and be punished by imprisonment of up to 20 years. Also, on June 7th, President Putin ordered creation of a new structure within the Internal Affairs Ministry, which manages the international police. This new police department is called Service for Immediate Reaction. Among other purposes, this service will ensure the compliance with the martial law regime if martial law is declared in Russia. Vox Ukraine, an analytical web platform for legal and economic research identified 35 important changes in the Ukrainian economic legislation made in the first quarter of this year. Take a look at the following legal novelties. Amendments to the loan financial services and companies, introduced risk-based supervision and regulation, and extended requirements currently applicable to banks to other financial institutions. Amendments to the law on transparency on extractive industries, align national legislation with international standards, and introduce the reporting of payment amounts for offsetting carbon dioxide emissions. The law on cloud services regulates the work of data centers and the provision of cloud services to public users. It imposed cybersecurity and data protection requirements and requires the providers of such services not to use technical means located on the aggressor's state territory. Several new laws and regulations address the healthcare management system and protection of Russian data. Building regulations were simplified for the period of restoration after the military aggression ends. During the restoration period, assessment of the work's environmental impact won't be required, and the use of [inaudible] other natural resources, except of oil and gas, will be regulated by regional administrations. Also anticipating the forthcoming post-war restoration, amendments were added to the tax and budget courts. There is a moratorium on the changes to taxation on extraction of natural resources for the next 10 years and increase in excise tax for some types of products, as described. To punish international companies if their branches continue to work in Russia. The rates of all taxes and fees, if they have to pay, were raised 50%. Another act is the law that guarantees the protection of deposits in Ukrainian banks. The state guarantees the safety of individual bank accounts to an unlimited amount for the period of war and three months after the war ends. After that, the insured amount will be limited to hryvnia 600,000, which is approximately 20,000 of American dollars. The economic block of legislation also includes a law on the expropriation of property of Russian Federation and its residents. This law allows for the confiscation of moveable and immovable property, funds, bank deposits, securities, property rights, and other property and assets located or registered in Ukraine. Originally, it only targeted legal entities operating in Ukraine when the founder, shareholder, or beneficial owner of which is the Russian Federation. Later, it was extended to Russia individual entrepreneurs, foreigners associated with Russia, or anyone who publicly supports Russian separation against Ukraine. According to the law, the forcible seizure of Russian property in favor of the Ukrainian state is to be carried out without any compensation of its value. Major pieces of Russian economic legislation were aimed at countering the effect of sanctions. On February 28th, the President of Russia issued a Decree on Special Economic Measures in response to sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies. Under this decree, all legal entities and individual entrepreneurs were required to sell 80% of their foreign-currency receipts to the state. A few days ago, this threshold was lowered to 50%, since the restriction was accompanied by a full ban on the export of hard currency and limits on taking foreign money outside of Russia. On March 5th, another decree of the president ordered Russian residents to pay their loan obligations to foreign financial institutions in rubles and transfer this money to special accounts opened in the Russian banks. Other measures included the requirement of then government approval for contracts with business from unfriendly states [inaudible] of shares in foreign companies. It is prohibited for Russian legal and natural persons to perform contractual obligations if that other party is under Russian sanctions. Presently, the state Duma is discussing commitments to the civil court that would allow Russian individuals and legal entities to disregard their obligations if they cannot be met due to foreign sanctions against Russia. Some analysts believe that it would be too easy to abuse this rule, and this would lead to a complete disregard of prior applications. Another proposal under deliberation is about introducing outside management for companies that left Russia, if foreigners own more than 25% of shares, [inaudible], or have a 30% decrease of revenues. Social and retirement benefits were adjusted because of the higher cost of living and increased by 10%. Interest on bank deposits received in 2021 and 2022 were exempt from taxation. There is another proposal to eliminate the 13% sales tax for sale of inherited real estate if it is sold by close relatives or the deceased person. After the war started, two industries were affected most, IT and aviation. To support the IT sector, the government canceled all mandatory inspections, announced tax breaks for the next three years, offer special loans to purchase real estate by IT employees, increased their salaries, and as I said before, exempted from military service. At the same time, administrative fines were introduced for operators of communications networks if they use foreign satellite systems, and they're not contributing to building the Russian segment of the network. Additional measures to ensure information security were proposed by presidential decree. It focuses on granting security services access to information collected by service providers, in order to counter computer attacks. In the aviation industry, a mandatory registration of all aircraft flying under the Russian flag and the Russian aviation registry regardless of their leasing status was proposed as a solution to avoid arrests of supplies. Another important decision pertained to the selling copyright and trademark-protected goods without termination from the rights holder, in order to bring those goods on the Russian territory. That is the so-called the "parallel import practice," and the list of items included in these regulations will be approved by the government. Before, selling goods protected by intellectual property by persons other than accredited distributors was punished by a fine and confiscation. When the war started, the Verkhovna Rada amended its internal rules to allow it to conduct distance meetings during the course of martial law if legislators cannot arrive in Kyiv for a regular session. Since meetings can be conducted outside of Kyiv where the majority of the other members of the workforce is, all of the sessions can be held virtually. However, virtual meetings of the legislature cannot discuss constitutional amendments, impeachment of the president, and issues related to war and peace. National TV and radio are required to broadcast live the virtual Rada meetings, and they will be streamed on the Rada's website. Virtual sessions don't require preliminary preparation or discussion of documents in the committees, and all documents should be sent to the Rada members by mail one day before this session. Distance voting is conducted openly, and proxy voting is not allowed. The Rada abolished the residential registration system and introduced the clarity of notification of one's residents. In fact, if a person has several permanent places of residence, they may declare only one of them at their discretion. Another government proposal is the legalized medicinal use of marijuana. Last week, a bill on this was introduced in the Rada. As mentioned, several times already, numerous amendments have been made to the criminal and criminal procedural courts. They include those [inaudible] with the international criminal court and novel developments regarding the investigation of cybercrimes. There are specific rules defining access of authorities to content and tools of communications, rules for protecting information, and procedures for arresting computer systems. Another major legal initiative is a ban of pro-Russian political parties in the organizations, including those that were represented in the Rada. Last week, the Appellate Court in Kyiv ordered the major opposition party, which is pro-Russian, disbanded. There are various initiatives to impose strict international control over the educational, cultural, and other programs. For example, the Rada is discussing how to monitor radio and TV content. It is proposed that no less than 40% of songs and 75% of other broadcasts would be in the Ukrainian language. Many recently passed pieces of Russian domestic policy legislation were focused on monitoring the exercise of the freedom of speech. Almost all foreign and Russia's independent media were blocked as soon as the war started. Many journalists, scholars, and media outlets were recognized as foreign agents. Such recognition imposes restrictions on the person or organization with respect to their political and electoral rights, subjects them to additional control, often reporting the authorities, and affect their clients and partners. Currently, the state Duma is debating if foreign agents should be banned from working with children, receiving government funding, and investing with strategic Russian enterprises. As mentioned by Russian legal analysts, the restrictive practice of applying legislation against fake news, which was developed during the COVID pandemic, has been used extensively during the war, the government-issued requirement to write about the war in Ukraine based on officially issued information only. Shortly after the special military operation started, the criminal court was amended with provisions stating that the distribution of knowingly false information about the use of armed forces or the work of government authorities is a felony. Any actions aimed at discrediting the use of Russian armed forces became a misdemeanor. These actions may be punished by fines or imprisonment up to three years. However, if the court finds that the fake news about Russian military were created by a group of persons or someone who used their official position, or this was done because of perpetrators' political or ideological position, the imprisonment term may extend up to 10 years. A person can be sentenced to a 15-year imprisonment if the distribution of fake news resulted in grave consequences. There is no clear definition of what constitutes grave consequences. Last week, the first person was sentenced for the distribution of fake news. An entrepreneur in Eastern Siberia was found guilty of publishing two documents in the in the [inaudible] about cremation of soldiers for Ukraine and indicating they are all conscripts to the war. He was fined in the amount equal to $20,000 US dollars, which by Russian standards is astronomical. It is also prohibited to use of the word "war," because officially, Russia is not fighting a war, but rather, is conducting a special military operation. So, those who protest saying "no war" are risking of being arrested and sentenced to fines and jail terms. On this picture, you see a protester in the city Ivanovo, who instead of the letters "no war" just put asterisks. This person was accused of discrediting the military and sentenced to pay a fine of almost $1,000 American dollars for holding this type of protest. Similar sentences have been issued by judges in other cities for displaying exactly the same signs. Right now, the Duma is discussing [inaudible], which if passed, would allow non-traditional cancellation of media registration for distribution of fake news about the military operation, and up to five years of imprisonment for making statements undermining national security. Other laws in this category are amendments to the law on firearms, which will enter into force at the end of June. There is an eligibility age for purchasing hunting weapons from 18 to 21 years, and a license for keeping the weapons will not be issued to people who were convicted for committing a grave, or especially grave crime, previously. Also, it is outlawed to modify firearms or to distribute instructions how to do that. So, the sale of sporting events tickets will be conducted upon producing, by the purchaser, a government-issued sporting fan pass. Each stadium visitor will be required to obtain such a pass through the web portal for Government Services. These passes will be used to identify those who were involved in disorderly conduct at soccer games and other sports events earlier. A request for the pass can be denied if an applicant violated public order in the past. The minimum age for access to electronic services at the Government Web Portal has been lowered to 14 years. A number of initiatives provide for further international isolation of the country. Russia withdrew from the Bologna Process, the European Credit Transfer System, and on March 15, Russia canceled its participation in the Council of Europe, accusing this organization of using human rights issues for attacks against Russia. After that, former Russia president, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that this is a good step because it would allow Russia to restore the death penalty. One of the Duma factions requested that funds previously spent on payment of membership dues in the Council of Europe be spent, instead, on public housing efforts. On June 10, the president signed the law declaring the non-applicability of the European Court of Human Rights decisions made after March 16. Payments for previously issued decisions will be made in rubles to Russian bank accounts only. As reported by Forbes, Russia is required to pay almost $2 billion of euros under a judgment in the case involving the oil and gas company, Yukos, and 79 million euros under other rulings. The Russian Association of Jurists proposed to create a Russian analog of the European Court of Human Rights, but they didn't decide in what form. There are suggestions to establish a national high court for human rights claims, as well as international tribunals. There were proposals to create such court within the Commonwealth of Independent States. The [inaudible] or maybe something original for Eurasia. Reportedly, the Prosecutor General and the Humans Rights Ombudswoman expressed their support of this idea. At the same time, the government reform continues in Russia. The law on the Unified System of Public Authorities entered into force on June 1. The law established a five-year term for all regional legislatures and governors. Election legislation was recently amended also, allowing distant electronic voting for elections at all levels nationwide and in the regions. Last week, the Central Election Commission determined in which seven regions would it be possible to work electronically during the election of local legislatures and governors next September. Last year, electronic voting was conducted during the State Duma elections in Moscow and two other provinces, and the results were controversial. Other election law amendments prohibit people who were convicted of conducting extremist crimes and sex offenses to run for offices five years after the conviction expiration. People who were associated with an organization recognized as extremist would be excluded from participation in presidential elections. As the Washington Post reported, Ukrainian prosecutors are investigating about 12,000 cases of suspected war crimes, including more than 1,000 of crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers against children. More than 600 Russian war crime suspects were identified, and prosecution of about 80 of them has been started. What are the options to hold perpetrators of these crimes accountable? Topics of debate among lawyers include to what degree the Ukrainian domestic court system can be involved, whether the Ukrainian National Courts have jurisdiction over war crimes, and how a national law can be adjusted in order to comply with international humanitarian law. Some scholars advocate the transfer of these cases to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. What makes this solution unusual? Neither Ukraine nor Russia are parties to their own statute, the multilateral treaty that governs the international criminal court. However, Ukraine accepted the ICC's jurisdiction with respect to alleged crimes committed in its territory since February 2014. The current situation is unusual because never before has the court provided a response in real time during an ongoing conflict. Now it has its people on the ground with an office opened in Kyiv, and investigative teams were sent to Ukraine to collect evidence. Because Ukraine is not a party the ICC, the court cannot investigate the crime of aggression, but the ICC will investigate crimes committed during the conflict, such as civilian killings, torture, attacks on hospitals, civilian infrastructure, the use of excessive force, and the use of prohibited weapons. Crimes allegedly committed by Ukrainian servicemen against Russian prisoners of war are falling within the scope of the ICC jurisdiction also. Under the Principle of Complementarity, the ICC can exercise its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes if the Ukrainian authorities are unable or unwilling to carry out their own affective domestic proceedings. The UN Human Rights Council decided to create an investigative commission on alleged human rights violations committed by Russia in Ukraine, and certain governments are launching their own investigations. The United States with Britain and the European Union announced the formation of Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine signed an agreement to coordinate the sharing of evidence of atrocities through the European Union Judicial Cooperation Agency, Eurojust. There are suggestions to create an independent review note similar to the one that was created for the former Yugoslavia. Pro-Russian Donbas separatists who detained Ukrainian war prisoners have also stated that they want to have an international tribunal to decide the fate of souls who were captured and fight. Three foreigners who were captured by Donbas forces and sentenced to death last week, they are prosecuted for participation in war, not for specific war crimes, and were convicted by a regular local court. Adoption of even this many laws will not solve all of the outstanding legal problems, and legislators are often in need of getting good advice from professionals. Soon after the invasion, Ukrainian lawyers initiated the so-called legal front for the occupation. This group of Ukrainian and international lawyers and legal scholars was created under the leadership of Alexei Krasin [assumed spelling], a law professor and the head of the Comparative Law Center at the Ukrainian Academy of Science. This group conducted a series of round tables and panels and came up with the recommendation for government on how to resolve current problems from the legal perspective. The recommendations were recently published, and you can see here the cover of the publication. The recommendations address areas listed on this slide and provide for treatment of Crimea as an occupied territory, discuss how to prove in a court that Russia went beyond the so-called "effective control" in the occupied Donbas areas. From the international law perspective, they refute claims on sovereign rights of these territories, request termination of the existing maritime agreements with Russia, and recommend commencement of proceedings against Russia in the international tribunal for the law of the sea. In regard to protection of human rights in the occupied territory, a set of amendments to existing legislation is proposed and the right of Ukraine to participate in the restoration of legal order in the territories illegally controlled by Russia is justified. New laws are proposed for better protection of cultural patrimony during war conditions and the ban on pro-Russian political parties and other political organizations is recommended. In the opinion of the authors, this measure can be legally achieved by reviewing the party selection programs, other documents and statements of their leaders, and representatives in the Rada also and by following, of course, guidance issued by the Venice Commission in this regard. Some of these recommendations were implemented recently. During this webinar, I couldn't cover all aspects of legal developments in two countries. The citation continues to evolve, and if you remain interested in this issue or have questions, you can always get back to us. You can find more information in our publications on the website, law.gov, in the CRS reports published on the Congress.gov page, or in the country law guides we are preparing a [inaudible]. For official information on countries' laws, I would recommend to look at the Parliamentarian Government website, and there are plenty of secondary sources which provide a good analysis of national legislation. For Ukraine, for example, I use the reports published by Vox Ukraine [inaudible]. For Russia, the Russian Agency of Legal and Judicial Information and Legal Information Agency are good aggregators of legal news. Also, you can always submit a request for information through the Ask a Librarian system. Let me check, what questions did we receive? So, there is a first question here. "Are laws adopted by Ukraine during the war in line with the EU standards, since Ukraine officially declared its aspirations were to EU membership?". Well, I think the European Council will answer this question next week when it decides on Ukraine's candidate status. However, it appears to me that the trajectory of legal development in the country is European. I can add a few more examples which were not mentioned in this presentation. For example, they recently passed laws on the aligning domestic regulation with EU standards. This happened in such fields as consumer protection, insurance, food industry regulations. Reliance on electronic preparations such as [inaudible] registries or submission of e-customs declaration is another measure aimed at lowering the level of corruption. An interesting example of what the amendment of regulations regarding military educational institutions, they got more academic freedom just before the war and became less dependent on admin control of the defense ministry and law enforcement agencies. In the literature, you can see concerns about the implementation of these laws, their application in practice, and that appears to be the area where more improvement is probably needed. Another question I see here is, "Are there lessons learned from the wartime legislative activities in Russia and Ukraine for the international law?" In other words, what are the implications? Well, we will see if lessons will be learned, but this will, definitely -- this war will definitely raise many questions before the international law community, and those questions will have implications. For example, the unprecedented number of companies insisting on an ICC investigation now, activation ICC jurisdiction by Ukraine, I think it all resulted in increased legitimacy of the court's investigation. Also, another currently debated question is about the responsibility of the head of state that is not subject to ICC jurisdiction, right to self-defense [inaudible] will of people, records of global community, role of sanctions, how the sanctions affect humanitarian consequences. I think the fact that this discussion is going, that these issues are debated, is the result of the war, maybe indirectly, of legislative activities, too. Another question, "Did Ukraine enact a state of emergency with regulations in [inaudible], which were just extended or even transferred to counter the invasion [inaudible]?" I don't remember having the emergency regulations. There were restrictions. There were practices to mitigate the results of the COVID pandemic, but martial law was really a new law invoked for the first time through the entire territory of the country. "Is there a good source of information on the effects of the war on Ukrainian legal education?" I would refer you to this publication about legal front because it represents now the position of Ukrainian legal scholars and the members of academia, and I think it is indicative of what is going on in the field of legal education also. "Will admission into the EU offer Ukraine any other help against Russia during the war?" Probably, but it is up to the EU how to help Ukraine, and probably, the admission to the EU is not a question right now. Next week, the [inaudible] status will be discussed, and I think those are all questions which we received. So, if there are no other questions, I would like to thank all of you and invite you to participate in our next webinar in July, which will be focused on the deregulation of remote work during the pandemic. Thank you.