Ukrainian courts are handing down real sentences to people who helped others survive the occupation and contacted the Russian authorities to do so. Babel analyzes two high-profile sentences and their reasons

In 6 months — from December 2024 to May 2025 — Ukrainian courts convicted 625 people for collaborationist activities. If you believe the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 51 of them should have been acquitted. Among the most high-profile sentences are real terms for a cleaner who distributed humanitarian aid in the occupied territories, and for a woman who worked in a Russian pension fund to take her family to territory controlled by Ukraine. Collaboration as a crime was included in the Criminal Code in March 2022. Although part of Ukraine has been occupied for 8 years. Due to the hasty wording of the articles, human rights activists say. Babel correspondent, lawyer Oksana Kovalenko, spoke about how Ukrainian courts handle cases of collaborators with five people familiar with the subject: Ukrainian and international human rights activists, an investigator, a prosecutor, and a judge. These are Alyona Lunyova, the advocacy director of the NGO “Center for Human Rights Information” (ZMINA), the director of the Global Foundation for Human Rights (GRC Foundation), royal advocate Wayne Jordash, an investigator of the Security Service of Ukraine (on condition of anonymity), a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office Oleksandr Zhyla, and a representative of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (on condition of anonymity).

A Ukrainian court sentenced a woman to 5 years in prison for working in the occupiersʼ pension fund to raise money to take her family to controlled territory.

On October 8, 2025, a Ukrainian court sentenced Viktoria Krykunova, who worked in Svatove during the occupation, to five years in prison. For two months (officially even less — from June 1 to 20, 2022), she went to work for the pension fund and helped Ukrainians like her receive pensions from the occupation authorities. She spent the money she earned to take her entire family out of the occupation to Ukraine in September 2022. In Ukraine, she was accused of collaboration and convicted.

People convicted of collaborationism have significant restrictions in their daily lives. They are limited in their ability to compensate for damage caused during the war. The amount of their pension will be limited. There are cases when people convicted of collaborationism were exchanged, and for this they had to write a letter renouncing their Ukrainian citizenship. Such restrictions can hardly be called fair for people who did not support the occupation, but tried to survive in it and help others survive.

It was planned to introduce criminal liability for collaborationism when the first occupied territories appeared, in 2014. However, this happened only in March 2022. Ukrainian and international human rights activists immediately began to criticize the new article of the Criminal Code (111-1).

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights calls on Ukraine to improve this article in each report. There have been attempts to change it: at least eight draft laws have been registered in parliament. However, they have not been put to consideration.

As a result, under Part Five of the new article, real terms are given to people who helped others survive the occupation. This part punishes those who voluntarily took up leadership positions in occupation administrations or other government bodies created in the occupied territories.

At first glance, it seems quite logical. The first ones who come to mind are former Ukrainian politicians who agreed to head occupation administrations, such as Yevhen Balytsky. In January 2025, he was found guilty of collaboration and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

However, this article includes those Ukrainians who helped people survive the occupation. These are the heads of housing and communal enterprises — the so-called street and quarter enterprises, who distributed humanitarian aid to people. From the beginning of the full-scale war to the end of September 2025, it was under this section that the largest number of proceedings were registered — 4 693.

The five-year imprisonment of Viktoria Krykunova from Svatove is the latest in a series of high-profile cases of conviction for collaborationism.

Before the Great War, she worked at an employment center, which ceased operations after the occupation of the city. There was no evacuation from the city. Her husband, a rescuer in the State Emergency Service, refused to work with the occupiers because he swore an oath to Ukraine. The family found themselves without money. Moreover, the Krykunovas family were supporting a son without one kidney and elderly parents who could not walk.

In April 2022, Viktoria Krykunova turned to an acquaintance at the pension fund of the occupation administration to accept her motherʼs application for a pension. In exchange, he asked her to become a deputy in the local occupation pension fund. Krykunova agreed. She worked there for no more than two months — until June 2022. She helped pensioners fill out pension applications and registered them.

Already in September, the Krykunovas family left. The Ukrainian court found her guilty of collaborationist activities. And although the formal elements of the crime are present here, because she really took up a position, the court did not assess either the insignificance of the act, nor the difficult life circumstances, nor the conditions of extreme necessity in which she was.

Even more problematic than the Krykunova case are the cases of “street workers” and “quarter workers”.

These are active residents of the street in the private sector or quarter: they monitor order and contact local authorities. During the occupation, it was they who mainly contacted the occupiers and distributed humanitarian aid.

In the verdicts of Ukrainian courts, this is called “organizational and administrative functions”. That is why they are tried under Part 5 of Article 111-1. Although in reality, “street workers” or “quarter workers” are public activities and are not official positions at all, they have no relation to the occupation administrations.

An illustrative example is the story of Tetyana Potapenko, a cleaner at the locomotive depot in Lyman, who was elected head of the street committee by her neighbours in the mid-2000s. Before the occupation, she was the deputy “quarterly” one. During the occupation, Tetyana Potapenko remained in the city, extorted humanitarian aid and firewood from the occupiers and distributed them to her neighbors. She did not receive a salary. For reporting purposes, she signed acts of receiving firewood.

After the de-occupation, Tetyana Potapenko continued to help her neighbours. In December 2022, she was detained, suspected of collaborationism, and sentenced to five years.

Witnesses in court confirmed that Tetyana Potapenko was distributing humanitarian aid and firewood and was not campaigning for Russia. The case went through the courts of first instance, the Court of Appeal and even the Cassation Court of the Supreme Court. The verdict was upheld — Potapenko was imprisoned for five years, and for another 15 years she will be prohibited from holding any positions in government and self-government bodies.

Only one judge of the panel of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court expressed a separate opinion that the courts ignored the norms of international humanitarian law.

In addition, according to the judge, the investigation did not collect convincing evidence that Tetyana Potapenko was indeed appointed by the administration. Tetyana Potapenkoʼs lawyers are preparing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

Babel interviewed five experts familiar with Ukrainian justice and international humanitarian law (IHL). They commented on the content and shortcomings of Article 111-1 "On Collaborative Activities"

The article on collaborationism does not define what collaborationism is.

In order for investigators, prosecutors, and judges to have a common understanding of what criminal collaborationism is, the article should include its definition. This is stated by the deputy head of the Prosecutorʼs General Office department, prosecutor Oleksandr Zhyla.

The definition should specify that it punishes a citizen of Ukraine or a stateless person who has a residence permit in Ukraine. This will also allow for the distinction between treason, collaborationism, and aiding and abetting an aggressor state (Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code).

“Currently, investigators, prosecutors, and judges have [different] ideas about these phenomena, so the practice is heterogeneous,” says Oleksandr Zhyla.

Therefore, in his opinion, it would be worth defining that treason is committed by citizens of Ukraine in government-controlled territory, collaborationism by citizens of Ukraine in occupied territories, and aiding and abetting an aggressor state by foreign citizens in any territory.

Also, in accordance with IHL, it is worth determining that a crime is not just holding a position, but rather actions in this position.

“Collaborationism is actions in favour of the enemy and to the detriment of the national security of Ukraine,” says prosecutor Oleksandr Zhyla.

Currently, this is not spelled out in the article, and therefore judges do not investigate the actions of the defendants. In fact, prosecutors and judges must prove that the defendant’s actions harmed national interests.

Separately, the Prosecutorʼs General Office prosecutor Oleksandr Zhyla notes that it is necessary not only to change the wording of Article 111-1, but also to develop transitional justice legislation.

The article on collaborationism must take into account the norms of international humanitarian law, emphasizes GRC Foundation Director Wayne Jordash. IHL is written in such a way that people under occupation can lead as normal a life as possible.

According to Wayne Jordash, courts should investigate why a person under occupation committed a certain act. Did they have a choice? Did they act truly voluntarily, or were they under duress? Did this act aid the Russian occupation or undermine Ukrainian sovereignty?

“The real purpose of the law is to identify and punish those who truly aided the occupiers, voluntarily and knowingly. Collaboration legislation should focus on serious cases where there is real harm to Ukraine’s national security and sovereignty,” Jordash says.

IHL allows the aggressor to regulate the life of the civilian population under occupation. It is obliged to ensure order and security in the occupied territories, to preserve the status quo of the administration that operated before the occupation.

This means that local authorities and civil servants must remain in their functions and roles in the occupied territories. The aggressor must ensure the operation of medical and educational institutions.

But Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code punishes Ukrainians who work in these positions.

For example, it will punish school principals, heads of district and city education departments — because they will have to implement Russian education standards. First of all, this will concern the lessons "Conversations about what is important", which are essentially Russian propaganda.

According to Alyona Lunyova, the Russian authorities are deliberately trying to "cover up" everyone — these lessons are conducted by class teachers, and this is almost all the teachers of the school.

According to Jordash, the court must find out whether a person acted under duress, the threat of violence, or in conditions that deprived him of his freedom of choice.

The second part of Article 111-1 convicts those who have received the lowest positions in government bodies in the occupied territories.

This article covers positions that are not related to organizational, managerial or administrative-economic functions. Accordingly, even cleaners working in the occupation administration fall under it. As a punishment in this case, confiscation of property is added.

Does the activity of a cleaner really harm national security?

"The article should limit the communication of our citizens with the occupying state. But in the occupation, people do not live in a vacuum, they need to survive there. Not everyone has a garden where they can grow potatoes and raise chickens, which they can use to survive until our troops liberate these territories," says the SBU investigator.

All entrepreneurs in the occupied territories may fall under the fourth part of the article.

It provides for responsibility for the transfer of material resources to the military formations of the aggressor state. Experts interviewed by Babel believe that this part should stipulate the voluntariness of these actions.

After all, a situation may be quite real when Russian military personnel come to the agrarian for lubricants, equipment, fuel, or with a demand to settle the military in hangars.

“First they arrive by tank, and the next day a fuel truck arrives. Most likely, a person will give away several tons of fuel after the tank,” explains the SBU investigator.

According to him, even if the agrarian leaves the occupation, there may be claims against him if he leaves his property there.

The same part of the article criminalizes economic activity during the occupation. During the three years of occupation, a citizen of Ukraine cannot help but contact the occupation authorities.

What can an entrepreneur do during the occupation?

The Geneva Convention provides that he can pay taxes. But to do this, he needs to re-register the enterprise according to Russian rules — and this will already be a crime. Purchasing equipment, selling products (for example, bread for local schools) — this will also be signs of collaboration.

According to the prosecutor of the Prosecutorʼs General Office Oleksandr Zhyla, it is necessary not only to change the wording of this part of the article, but also to develop transitional justice legislation.

Part five of the article, in addition to the already mentioned "quarterly", also includes chief doctors protected by the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Convention determines that doctors are a protected category of citizens and the occupying state is obliged to support the activities of medical services and ensure health protection.

Moreover, according to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocol, the protected category of "medical personnel" includes not only doctors, but also hospital administrators — that is, chief doctors.

But Ukrainian courts continue to convict chief doctors.

“This really does not fit into the terms of the Conventions. It turns out that only private medical practice is allowed in the occupied territories, because municipal hospitals (which are part of the occupation administrations) have a lot of administrative positions, without which the hospitals cannot work and care about the health of people in the occupied territories,” says Oleksandr Zhyla.

According to him, investigators and judges should evaluate the actions of the chief doctor. If he (or other doctors) promoted Russian propaganda, did not provide assistance to prisoners of war, took biological material from prisoners or their children, or tortured them, they are accomplices in war crimes and must be held accountable. If they were only performing their duties, no.

Firefighters in occupied territories are protected by the Geneva Conventions because they protect the population — but in Ukraine they fall under Part 7 of the article.

It concerns Ukrainians who have gone to work in law enforcement agencies, courts, or in the armed forces of the occupying country.

In Ukraine, firefighters and rescuers are employees of the State Emergency Service. It is not a law enforcement agency, but the State Emergency Service performs a law enforcement function.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court clarified which employees of the State Emergency Service are considered law enforcement officers and which are not. Firefighters and rescuers working on site are not law enforcement officers.

However, courts continue to convict those who work as firefighters in the occupied territories. Such cases are usually heard in absentia — without the accused. Consequently, courts do not assess the reasons why a person agreed to this position, as well as their actions in this position.