Deputy Justice Minister Andrii Haichenko: "Previously, expert was essentially slave to their supervisor. We have prevented abuses of power by heads of forensic institutions"
Since the onset of the full-scale war, the number of requests for forensic examinations has multiplied. Among the most in-demand are explosive, environmental, construction and engineering, and military forensics. However, despite the critical role this institution plays in the justice system, it has remained underfunded and vulnerable to outside influence for years.
The workload on specialists in this field continues to grow, while their numbers do not. Deputy Justice Minister Andrii Haichenko spoke with us about what is being done to change the situation.
"PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THEIR CLOSENESS TO ME"
- The reform of the forensic examination institute was initiated by the President even before the full-scale war, and it has been repeatedly announced by the Ministry of Justice. Why is it not progressing? For example, the NABU director said about it in an interview with "Dzerkalo Tyzhnia": "The reform of the forensic examination institute is long overdue, and concrete measures need to be taken at last. Moreover, forensic examination is a crucial tool for Ukraine’s post-war recovery. If we want to effectively fight corruption, the reform should have started yesterday." When will it finally be implemented?
- At the core of any reform are financial resources. The anti-corruption reform started with high salaries. Employees of NABU, the SBI, and the BES now receive salaries of 100, 150, or 200 thousand hryvnias. Meanwhile, a forensic expert, with all the responsibility they bear, earns on average 20–25 thousand.
Yes, we (the Ministry of Justice – editor’s note) managed to secure a provision in the specialised Law on Forensic Examination that sets the salary of a forensic expert at the level of 10 minimum wages, roughly 80 thousand. However, for the past six years, Parliament has suspended this salary adjustment clause for forensic experts each year in the State Budget Law. Each year, this is outlined as a separate clause. There are no funds.
Nonetheless, since 2019, we have implemented a series of systemic changes aimed at strengthening experts’ independence and improving the quality of investigations. As a result, forensic examination in 2019 and now are two completely different systems, like night and day.
Regarding Mr. Kryvonos’s statement, that is his position. We often discuss it in various circles. The decision rests with the Verkhovna Rada. Funding decisions also lie with the deputies. As a ministry, we must operate within the limits of available resources.
Do you know what funding we’ve had for capital expenditures since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion? Zero hryvnias, zero kopecks. Yet throughout the entire war, my colleagues and I, heads of scientific institutions, have secured donor equipment worth 340 million hryvnias.
Another problem is the number of forensic experts. Although military, construction-technical, and environmental examinations have significantly increased during the full-scale war, only about 40 new experts have been added. Clearly, many more are needed. You can see the destruction caused by shelling and the toll on the environment. For example, a Grad rocket system fired on a certain field. The expert’s task is to determine how many years and which crops cannot be grown on that field, and which ones can.
We have repeatedly sent letters to the Ministry of Finance, requesting an increase of 300 experts and funding for this. But no positive decision has been made so far.
I understand how important it is to allocate funds to the military. Without the military, experts wouldn’t be needed either. But it is easy to criticize a system that is just surviving and it survives for objective reasons, mainly due to a lack of funding.
- You mentioned that forensic examination has changed compared to five years ago. Can you explain how?
- First, we decentralized forensic examination to prevent information leaks. We abolished the requirement that the place ordering the examination must be linked to the location of the institution conducting it. An investigator from Kyiv can now order an examination at an expert institution located in Odesa or Dnipro.
Second, we created a competitive environment among expert institutions. Now, each region has at least one branch of one of the seven research institutions of forensic examinations under the Ministry of Justice. Kyiv even has branches of the Lviv and Kharkiv institutes. This way, investigative authorities in Kyiv are not tied to just one Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations, where the director used to be like a king and god five to six years ago. Now, that director is simply the head of one expert institution.
Third, we prevented abuse of power by directors of expert institutions regarding disciplinary actions against experts.
- What do you mean?
- Previously, the director of the institution decided on the punishment of an expert. Imagine this situation: the institute director brings a forensic report to a subordinate and tells them what conclusion to write. The expert replies, "That’s illegal; I’ll be held accountable." The director insists, "If a complaint comes in, I’ll review it according to current law and respond. "And if you don’t write it as required, I’ll ask someone to file a complaint against you and have you held accountable."
Essentially, the expert used to be a slave to their supervisor. Today, all disciplinary proceedings are handled by a special Ministry of Justice commission composed of permanent and rotating members. What’s a rotating composition? If a complaint is filed, say, against a forensic psychologist, we randomly select two forensic psychologists from different institutes to review the case. Experts from other fields are chosen similarly.
Now, if a director tries to give an illegal order to an expert, the expert can ask, "Will you protect me from disciplinary action?" Because this is no longer negotiable. The commission includes five permanent members, two rotating experts, and a chairperson. And no one knows in advance who exactly will be part of the rotating members.
It’s also important to note that we have fully transitioned to electronic document management, which prevents conducting examinations retroactively, as sometimes happened before. All forensic institutions are connected to the electronic document management system and electronically interact with the Ministry of Justice and other executive authorities. This, first of all, has reduced paperwork. There are no cases of documents being lost, not delivered, or backdated entries made. Such things could happen before. When lives and billions are at stake, experts, especially heads of institutions, could get quite creative. Today, instructions on how to "arrange everything properly," what dates to put where, simply don’t work in expert institutions.
- Are you sure they don’t work?
- How could you do something like that when all documents are in an electronic document management system with electronic signatures? If you do, there will be a trace left behind.
- Do leaders of law enforcement agencies still come to you and claim there are abuses during forensic examinations? Or did that never happen before?
- Our task is to ensure objectivity and the establishment of truth. If someone is dissatisfied, there is a commission under the Ministry of Justice, submit which methodologies were violated, and we will review the complaint. If there are doubts, the commission can order an anonymous review at another institute.
- How does this work in practice?
- We anonymize the examination and send it to an institute in another city. They must provide a conclusion on whether violations occurred. Then the commission reviews it.
Manual control in conducting forensic examinations is becoming a thing of the past, although many don’t like it.
- Is "phone justice" still used nowadays?
- It wouldn’t be true to say that nobody calls me. Some colleagues or acquaintances do call and say, "Take a look." I always respond, "We’ll look into it." But we focus strictly on whether it complies with the law.
When it comes to the enforcement service, they might ask, "We’ve paid the debt; can the seizure be lifted quickly?" We are required to lift it within 24 hours anyway, but sometimes the officer is sick, on vacation, or simply didn’t get to it due to other duties. Most of the calls I get are like that. As for forensic examinations, such calls are much rarer.
People overestimate their closeness to me. That’s why they call. My universal response to such calls and requests is: "Would a lawful decision regarding the examination satisfy you?" No one has yet said no.
- Have you ever been threatened?
- Yes, I have.
- What exactly do they say?
- They send greetings and say that life doesn’t end today. They also ask if I’m immortal.
- Do they send messages or say this in person?
- Mostly, it’s conveyed through mutual acquaintances.
- Have you filed complaints with law enforcement?
- What would that achieve? If I file a complaint against someone I know, they’ll come to him, and he’ll just say nothing happened.
- Have you ever found wiretaps in your office? There was such a case with former Deputy Minister Olha Onishchuk, who spoke about it publicly.
- I don’t look for them. I work according to the law, let them listen.
- In court hearings, I have repeatedly heard questions about examinations, remarks about objectivity.
- Experts operate within the framework of methodologies and specialized knowledge. You may have questions for an expert, but trust me, in 95% of cases, they have answers based on the regulations they follow—methodologies, procedures, scientific literature, standards, etc.
Forensic examination is always a story in one of the parties is unhappy with. And when an expert is called to court, there can be a lot of negativity. But I stand for building a system where the director of an expert institution cannot give instructions to the expert. On the other hand, the expert must understand that if they, to put it bluntly, "mess up," their work can be suspended. For example, there was a recent case involving an examination in the case of Mr. Sapozhko (mayor of Brovary – editor’s note). One confident expert valued the right to use a Range Rover at 10,000 hryvnias per month. This examination was commissioned by his lawyers. They submitted it to the court. I found out about it, called, and said, "Can I get a Range Rover like that? Where did you get this price of 10,000 hryvnias per month? I’m ready to rent one even for 20,000." They couldn’t justify it.
A complaint was filed with the disciplinary commission, and an anonymous review revealed all the violations. As a result, the expert was held disciplinarily liable and had their activities suspended for six months.
- You mentioned that despite the increase in the number of examinations due to the war, the number of experts hasn’t grown. Overall, is the staff fully staffed? Are people leaving because the workload has increased but salaries remain at pre-war levels?
- Sometimes people leave for institutions offering higher salaries, like forensic units in the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Security Service of Ukraine. There is some migration. But we have long established a core group of dedicated specialists. At every meeting, I say: what we do with a ruler and microscope, Western experts do with advanced equipment over a much longer time.
"WE WANT TO BUILD AN ANONYMOUS FORENSIC EXAMINATION SYSTEM"
- Ukraine still lacks a full-fledged military justice system, although attempts are underway to create one. Meanwhile, very little attention is paid to the institute of military experts. According to lawyers representing the interests of military personnel in criminal proceedings, there are fewer than 20 such experts across the system. Do you plan to develop this area?
- We have increased the number of explosive ordnance disposal and military experts. But, as I mentioned earlier, not significantly compared to the surge in requests for examinations.
- In 2023, when discussing the reform of the forensic examination system, then-Minister of Justice Denys Maliuska announced: "We are launching a pilot, an expert institution with built-in guarantees of independence." He emphasized that it should handle high-profile cases, experts would undergo integrity checks, and to reduce corruption risks, they would receive high salaries. This refers to the Research Center for Independent Forensic Examinations, which has already begun operating. Does this center actually offer high salaries, or are they similar to others in the system?
- No, they are almost the same. Maybe slightly higher due to bonuses and such.
- I recall that salaries of around 70,000 were mentioned.
- 70,000 was the salary that all experts were supposed to have; 100,000 was planned, but it didn’t materialize.
- Is the center operational?
- Yes. It receives forensic examinations from the Bureau of Economic Security, the State Bureau of Investigations, and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. It’s a small institute with excellent equipment and a top-tier selection of independent experts. So far, I haven’t heard any complaints about the substance or timing from anyone.
- How do the "built-in guarantees of independence," mentioned by the former minister, differ from the independence of other expert institutions?
- It includes a mechanism to create a supervisory board that will select the director. The Ministry of Justice will have limited influence.
But until proper salaries are established, we won’t have enough qualified candidates for the director position. When you run a competition offering a salary of 50,000 hryvnias and say you want an experienced, professional, and honest person to develop the institution, it’s laughable. It’s not laughable when the salary is 200,000.
You won’t find candidates with all those qualities for 50,000. It will either be a dishonest person who manages to hide it well or someone fantastically honest but incapable.
- And who is currently leading this institution?
- Andrii Svintsitskyi is acting as the head.
- Which of the two types you mentioned earlier would he fit into?
- Right now, he’s a fan.
- Honest and capable?
- Honest and capable. But we won’t find ten people like him for the competition.
- What was taken into account when appointing him?
- His background, work experience, and personal qualities, as assessed by both Denys Maliuska and me. Someone had to build this institute, and he essentially did that. The institute was established and started issuing examinations a few months ago.
But I don’t want Andrii Svintsitskyi to be the only candidate in future leadership competitions. Other people must come forward, and expert salaries need to be increased.
- Right now, we need funds for the army; after the war, they’ll be needed for reconstruction. If expert salaries aren’t raised, what will you do?
- This institute has been established, and there are no complaints about its work. What will happen next, we will see. First, we still need to appoint a supervisory board. But who will want to join such a board now, and how will they be paid? Try finding someone willing to submit a declaration these days.
- Don’t you think this approach basically undermines the whole idea?
- The idea was to create such an institute, and that has been realized. We selected experts based on certain integrity criteria. There is also an IT system in place that protects experts from undue influence. Next, we want to build an anonymous forensic examination system — meaning the expert won’t know who ordered the examination, whether it’s a lawyer or an investigator.
This is a complex system. Take economic examinations as an example. There’s still so-called primary data, and it’s clear which company it belongs to. But it’s not visible who ordered the examination.
We will pursue maximum anonymization, which will bring some challenges. We will identify and refine them. Then, if possible, we will scale this institute’s experience to all institutions.
- Are there any tentative deadlines for the reform of the forensic examination system?
- We have a basic development program for forensic examination running until 2028. It introduces, as a foundation, the IT platform "Unified Digital Space for Forensic Experts," which will enable all parties to interact, including investigators and courts via dedicated portals, all within a single infrastructure. And if potential donors are reading this interview: welcome, we need funding for this. We want to implement it. We have a clear plan through 2028
- Since spring 2022, experts have worked alongside law enforcement in deoccupied territories, helping to document war crimes. Kyiv region was the first. But this documentation often took place some time after the crimes were committed. How much did this complicate the experts’ work? And how did it affect the examinations?
- For example, in the Kyiv region at that time, there was no communication except via radio between experts. Overall, working was difficult. But everything was documented.
It became more complicated when cleanup and waste removal began, that was later. At that time, no one was restoring anything or removing debris. Bodies were just taken away, and that’s when we went there.
- What types of examinations were conducted then?
- Military, explosive ordnance disposal, and construction-technical examinations.
- Which settlements were the first to be visited?
- Bucha, Irpin, Borodianka.
- What did people who survived the occupation tell you?
- I didn’t communicate with people at that time; there was no time because we had to quickly organize everything for the experts’ work. I remember on the first day we arrived, it was very cold and wet snow was falling. Proper clothing and footwear were essential. An expert could enter any house destroyed by the Russians and run into rebar. So it was important to me that they had boots and waterproof suits. I took care of these matters.
At that time, we gathered a team from different cities, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv. Everyone came to work in the Kyiv region. We tried to ensure their living conditions and safety. I was worried they might blow themselves up in some destroyed buildings where the enemy could have left anything or step on mines that the Russians had hidden there. Because back then, not everything had been cleared of mines yet. We coordinated with the State Emergency Service, discussed certain rules to minimize such risks. That’s what I was focused on during those days.
- Have there been any cases where someone actually blew themselves up?
- Fortunately, no.
- Has anything like that happened later? Now with drones dropping explosives, experts have to work in frontline areas.
- One of the recent cases was when an FPV drone attack shredded a car with shrapnel.
- Were the people alive?
- Yes, they survived.
- It’s been two years since the Kakhovka hydroelectric plant explosion. Have examinations been conducted, damages assessed, and consequences established?
- It involves a complex set of examinations. I can’t disclose the number because it’s part of a criminal investigation. But we are working jointly with the United Nations, which estimates the approximate damage at 14 billion dollars.
- Russia is increasing the number of Shahed drones and missiles used to shell civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Residential buildings are often damaged or destroyed during such attacks. Are technical examinations conducted on partially damaged buildings to determine if they are fit for habitation?
- Questions regarding the habitability of buildings are handled by special commissions formed by local authorities. The task of the Ministry of Justice forensic experts is different, to build the evidentiary base of crimes committed by the aggressor country, the Russian Federation.
When a residential building or other civilian infrastructure is destroyed, a criminal case is opened under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: "Violation of the laws and customs of war." Experts determine the type of weapon, explosive used, and the extent of the damage.
- How many requests for such examinations have been received, and how many have been completed? How long do they usually take?
- I can provide the number of valuation and construction-technical examinations completed in the first half of 2025, including those as part of complex examinations: 1,373 and 2,060 respectively. In total — 3,433 examinations. The duration depends on the complexity and size of the objects. On average, from one to three months. For cases involving tens or hundreds of millions in damages, it can take up to six months.
- When Ukrainians are returned from captivity, they report torture. Are examinations conducted to document this information, providing evidence of violations of the Geneva Conventions and war crimes committed by Russia?
- Forensic medical examinations are conducted by experts under the Ministry of Health. We conduct psychological evaluations. We assess the psychological state and, if requested, evaluate the moral damage caused by captivity.
- Is such an examination conducted for every returned person?
- Only upon request. But such work is ongoing.
Tetiana Bodnia, Censor.NET
