Free Legal Aid System Library

Training package: fair trial and in absentia

Standardized educational package · updated on 08/20/2026

A practical route for assessing the compatibility of proceedings in the absence of a person with guarantees of a fair trial.

Open a selection of sources

Personal progress on this device

Processing the route

0/10

Bookmarks are stored only in your browser and are not transmitted to the server.

1. Purpose and expected result

  • Build a map of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention.
  • Evaluate notices, opt-outs, defenses and right to reconsideration.
  • Separate the Ukrainian procedure from comparative standards.

2. Audience and prerequisites

For lawyers, judges, prosecutors, investigators and trainers. The basic prerequisite is an understanding of the Criminal Code and Criminal Code of Ukraine and the principles of international humanitarian law.

3. Approximate study plan

  1. 20 min — primary map of concepts.
  2. 60–90 min — work with primary sources.
  3. 45 min — practical exercise.
  4. 15 min — checklist and self-check.

4. Normative core

Start with current Ukrainian legislation and the relevant international treaty. Use policies, manuals and analytical materials according to their normative weight. Bills are not valid law.

5. Key sources

In the thematic selection, each source has a status, jurisdiction, date of last review, estimated time, and a brief practical conclusion.

6. Practical exercise

  • Create a timeline of the person's notification of suspicion, indictment, and trial.
  • Indicate what evidence supports the person's knowledge of the proceedings.
  • Prepare arguments for both sides of the effectiveness of accessible viewing.
VerificationQuestion
MessageHas proper and timely information about the proceedings and the court been proven?
RefusalWas the opt-out unambiguous and guaranteed?
ProtectionDid the defender have a real opportunity to prepare and present the position?
ViewingIs an effective new trial available after the individual appears?

7. Work checklist

  1. Set the applicable edition of the PDA.
  2. Check all methods of reporting and their evidence.
  3. Assess the voluntariness and unambiguity of refusal to participate.
  4. Check protection time and resources.
  5. Find out if a full new review is available.

8. Self-test: 10 questions

1. Has the nature of the armed conflict been determined?

Record the facts, the standard and the time limits, not just a summary label.

2. Is a specific rule of law named?

Referring only to Article 438 without a specific provision of IHL does not explain the nature of the violation.

3. Are material, mental and contextual elements separated?

For each element there must be a separate fact, source and level of proof.

4. Has the status of the person or object been verified?

The status is determined by the facts at the relevant time and may require separate proof.

5. Has the nexus with the armed conflict been proven?

Temporal proximity to a war does not in itself always prove the necessary connection.

6. Is the provenance of each piece of evidence reproduced?

Check the source file, metadata, receive, transfer and conversion log.

7. Have alternative explanations been tested?

A strong position should directly test versions compatible with innocence or other qualifications.

8. Are the materials taken into account in favor of the defense?

Check disclosure for completeness and record requests for missing materials.

9. Has the editorial and procedural status of the source been verified?

Open the official text, date, instance and further history of the decision.

10. Are the limits of the conclusion formulated?

Separate established fact, expert assumption, analytical assessment and legal conclusion.

9. Ethics, safety and typical risks

Adhere to confidentiality, do no harm, data minimization and professional independence. The educational package is not an individual legal consultation.

10. Relevance and further education

Source status verified on August 20, 2026. Before procedural use, double-check the edition. The recommended cycle of editorial review is once a quarter.