On August 12, 2026, a major judicial scandal erupted in Kyiv regarding the change of preventive measure for Pavlo Petrenko, the former Chief Consultant of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU). The Obolon District Court of the capital decided to release the suspect on bail in the amount of 332,000 hryvnias, despite the severity of the charges, which include sexual violence against a minor and the production of child pornography.
Details of the Criminal Case and Charges
According to investigative materials, at the time of the alleged acts, Pavlo Petrenko held a position at the Constitutional Court. He is accused of committing sexual acts against his own 3-year-old daughter. Law enforcement data indicates that the man undressed in front of the child, used toys to simulate sexual acts, and forced the girl to touch his genitals, calling it a "game." All of this was recorded on a mobile phone.
On August 12, 2026, the National Police formally notified Petrenko of suspicion under Part 6 of Article 153 (sexual violence against a minor) and Article 301-1 (production and distribution of child pornography) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The maximum penalty under these articles provides for imprisonment for up to 15 years.
Procedural Pause and Military Status
The chronology of the case demonstrates the use of procedural norms related to martial law. The criminal proceedings in case No. 760/25655/24 were initiated back in 2024. After Petrenko was dismissed from the CCU, he was conscripted into the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).
On February 24, 2025, the court officially suspended the proceedings. According to Ukrainian procedural legislation, serving in the military during martial law is grounds for temporarily suspending criminal proceedings. This decision allowed the suspect to avoid detention during the long investigation period.
Court Decision on Bail and Prosecutor's Reaction
The decision by Judge I. G. Makarenko of the Obolon District Court on August 12, 2026, caused a wide resonance. Instead of selecting detention as a preventive measure, the court set bail in the amount of 332,000 hryvnias (approximately 8,000 US dollars).
The Prosecutor's Office considers this decision unlawful. The Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office has already filed an appeal with the Kyiv Court of Appeal, demanding a review of the preventive measure and the detention of the suspect. The prosecution argues its position based on the severity of the acts and the need to protect the rights of the minor victim.
Contradictory Data
During the consideration of the case, discrepancies arose regarding the assessment of risks by the court and the prosecution.
Defense and Court Position: Judge Makarenko, setting the bail, was likely guided by the fact that the security amount is sufficient to prevent escape, and the military status requires a special approach to preventive measures.
Prosecution Position: Prosecutors insist that the bail amount is disproportionately low for an official who previously held high posts and does not guarantee the suspect's appearance at investigative actions. The prosecution also points out that the suspect has already used his military status to delay the process, which may indicate an attempt to evade responsibility.
Legal Context and Public Resonance
This case has become a subject of discussion in the context of applying martial law legislation to cases of crimes against the sexual integrity of children. Human rights organizations express concern that the mechanism for suspending proceedings may be used as a tool to evade justice. At the same time, the legal community notes that courts are obliged to follow the letter of the law, but in this case, the balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the victim was violated, according to public opinion.
