This article offers a detailed comparative analysis of in absentia trials within the legal frameworks of Russia, Ukraine, and several CIS countries, with a particular focus on Azerbaijan’s evolving legal system. Russia’s increasing use of in absentia trials serves as a strategic tool for political repression and historical control, targeting dissidents, opposition figures, and scholars challenging the state’s official narratives. Rooted in Soviet-era legal traditions, Russia’s legal framework, including Article 282 of the Criminal Code and the 2002 Extremism Law, enables the prosecution of individuals in their absence. This practice circumvents fair trial principles, silencing critics and reinforcing the state’s authority over political and historical discourse, as seen in high-profile cases involving opposition leader Alexei Navalny and Ukrainian authors critical of Soviet history.

In contrast, the article examines the legal heritage shared by other CIS states, such as Uzbekistan, as well as Ukraine, where in absentia trials are applied in cases where defendants evade justice by fleeing abroad or avoiding court appearances. While similar legal principles underpin these practices, there are significant regulatory differences. Moldova and Georgia have introduced comprehensive procedural safeguards, including explicit provisions for notification, legal representation, and appeal rights. Azerbaijan’s recent legal reforms (2023–2024) mark a significant step toward aligning it’s in absentia trial procedures with European legal standards. Drawing on legal frameworks from countries like Italy, Germany, Romania, and Moldova, Azerbaijan has prioritized due notification, mandatory legal representation, and the right to appeal in its efforts to enhance the fairness of in absentia trials, reflecting its commitment to international human rights norms.

A central focus of this article is Ukraine’s application of in absentia trials, especially in the context of ongoing armed conflict. Ukraine has relied on these trials to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, treason, and other serious offenses, particularly targeting those who have fled the country during the conflict. Despite these extraordinary circumstances, Ukraine remains committed to upholding international legal standards, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ensuring procedural fairness for absent defendants. Ukraine’s adherence to stringent notification requirements, legal representation, and the right to appeal has had a direct influence on Azerbaijan’s legal reforms, serving as a model for balancing the demands of justice with the protection of defendants’ rights, even in complex and challenging contexts.

The article also highlights Ukraine’s broader participation in shaping regional legal practices, particularly its role in influencing Azerbaijan’s reforms. Ukraine’s approach, especially in managing in absentia trials during conflict, underscores the adaptability of these proceedings to both legal and practical exigencies while maintaining procedural fairness. By examining Ukraine’s experience alongside Russia’s use of in absentia trials for political repression, the article provides a comparative framework that underscores the divergent uses of in absentia proceedings across the region.

 Through this comparative analysis, the article illustrates the critical importance of balancing judicial efficiency with fundamental human rights. Azerbaijan’s measured legal reforms, heavily influenced by Ukraine’s practices, reflect a forward-looking approach aimed at harmonizing its legal framework with European standards while ensuring that defendants’ rights are safeguarded. In contrast, Russia’s continued manipulation of in absentia trials as a tool for suppressing opposition and controlling historical discourse highlights the use of these proceedings for political repression. This study concludes by emphasizing how Azerbaijan and Ukraine’s evolving legal systems offer valuable lessons on the effective regulation of in absentia trials, reinforcing justice and fair trial standards in complex legal environments across the CIS region.

Bibliography

Edited books

1. Bachmaier Winter L, ‘New Developments in EU Law in the field of In Absentia national proceedings. The Directive 2016/343/EU in the light of the EctHR Case Law’, in: S Quattrocolo, S Ruggeri (eds), Personal participation in criminal proceedings: a comparative study of participatory safeguards and in absentia trials in Europe (Springer 2019) 641–667.

2. Mitsilegas V, ‘The European Union and the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings’, in: D Brown, J Iontcheva Turner, B Weisser (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (Oxford University Press 2019) 115.

Journal articles

3. Bertelsen O, ‘A Trial in Absentia: Purifying National Historical Narratives in Russia’ [2016] 3 Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal 57–87.

4. Callewaert J, ‘Convention Control Over the Application of Union Law by National Judges: The Case for a Wholistic Approach to Fundamental Rights’ [2023] 1 European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration 331–347.

5. Dyadkin D, V Anisimov, O Glukhovska Schaefer, ‘Punishability of Acts of Extremist Orientation Stipulated by Article 282 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (“CCRF”)’ [2020] 77 Faculty of Law, Stockholm University Research Paper.

6. Hamuľák O, ‘Penetration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union into the Constitutional Order of the Czech Republic – Basic Scenarios’ [2020] 7(1) European Studies-the Review of European Law, Economics and Politics 108–124.

7. Kalinnikov O, ‘Comparative Analysis of Trial in Absentia in Legislation of the FRG and Ukraine’ [2023] 2(10) Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs 105–116.

8. Krstić I, Čučković B, ‘Procedural aspects of article 8 of the ECHR in environmental cases – the greening of human rights law’ [2015] 63(3) Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade 170–189.

9. Mezyaev A, ‘Trial in Absentia and the Modern International Criminal Procedure’ [2023] 1 Moscow Journal of International Law 76–85.