General Provisions
Until 2015, military examinations by scientific research institutions of forensic expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine were not conducted. This examination was put into effect by the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated 27.07.2015 No. 1350/5.
The subject of forensic military examination is the establishment by a forensic military expert of facts (judgments about facts) on issues determined by the investigator or court regarding the order of work (actions or inaction) of military command bodies (commanders and chiefs) of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, other military formations established in accordance with the laws, special law enforcement agencies of the security and defence sector, which perform their official duties (officials) in accordance with the current legislation instructions).
The object is material carriers of evidentiary information, which are collected and provided by the investigator or court for forensic military examination.
Forensic examinations are conducted on the basis of research methods. The analysis of methodological materials included in the Register of Forensic Examination Methods and in the List of Scientific, Technical and Reference Literature indicates a lack of methods for conducting military examinations (research) in Ukraine.
In order to work out the algorithm of actions of a forensic military expert when performing expert research, specialists of the Kyiv and Kharkiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine conducted and are conducting research work to develop appropriate methods in the field of military knowledge.
According to the decision of the Coordinating Council for Forensic Examination at the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated January 18, 2019, it passed state registration and entered into the Register of Methods for Conducting Forensic Examinations “Methodology for Integrated Research of Missile and Artillery Weapons” (registration code 16.1.01). In 2019, the acts of acceptance of research projects “Development of methods for conducting forensic military examinations related to the level of defence capability of the State”, and “Development” were approved in accordance with the established procedure methods of conducting forensic military examinations on assessing the actions of officials (managers, commanders, chiefs) – subjects of combating terrorism, during the anti-terrorist operation” and recommended at the section to test them in scientific research institutions of forensic expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. In 2020-2022, within the framework of the research project “Development of methods for forensic research on the use of artillery units” and “Development of a methodology for establishing the compliance of actions (inaction) of officials with the requirements of regulatory documents on the organization of storage of missiles and ammunition and other weapons in arsenals, bases and warehouses”, appropriate methods are being developed.
The main tasks of military examinations are the following:
- establishing the circumstances of the use and actions of military formations;
- establishment of circumstances that led to serious consequences, deaths of people (servicemen, employees of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the National Guard of Ukraine and other representatives of ministries and departments, civilians), loss of weapons, military equipment, objects of state power and infrastructure, personal property of citizens during the use of military formations;
- establishing compliance of actions (inaction) of officials with the requirements of governing documents (assigned duties).
Indicative list of issues to be addressed is the following
- Did (could have) negative consequences for the defence capability of the state and combat capability of the Armed Forces of Ukraine decisions on liquidation (disbandment, reduction) of certain branches of troops, formations, military units and units?
- How was it organized by the head (commander, chief) to receive information (its sources) from interdepartmental bodies on the situation in the area of combat (special) operations?
- Which officials (commanders, chiefs) were entrusted with training units involved in combat missions and monitoring their readiness and compliance with the requirements of governing documents?
- How was the provision of hostilities by type of support? Have plans been drawn up to provide troops (forces) by type of support for the groups involved in the task?
- How was the support of units that were designated for combat missions?
- What normative (guiding) documents were used in the planning and organization of hostilities?
- Did the requirements of regulatory (guiding) documents, as well as the situation, meet the combat documents (plans) by types of support for units and units involved in the combat mission?
- Are the identified violations causally related to the onset of serious consequences that led to the death of servicemen (employees) and other persons, loss of weapons and military equipment? If so, what exactly and by whose actions (inaction) are they caused?
- What actions (inaction) of the leadership (commanders, chiefs) led to the encirclement of units and units involved in the combat mission in the area of hostilities?
- How and by whom (leaders, commanders, chiefs) was determined the possible threat of encirclement of units and units involved in combat missions in the area of hostilities?
- What measures were taken to prevent the encirclement and withdrawal from the environment of units and units that were involved in combat missions and were encircled?
- How was the interaction in the area of hostilities organized between units of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the National Guard of Ukraine and other military formations and state authorities?
- How was the exit (breakthrough, departure) of units from the environment organized, who exactly provided the exit (breakthrough, departure) of these units and subdivisions?
- Has the procedure for processing, adjusting and performing combat missions stipulated by regulatory acts been fulfilled?
- Do the graphic images on the work maps of commanders at all levels correspond to the tasks of warfare (combat missions)?
- How was the participation in hostilities (at all levels) recorded and the daily reporting of military formations to the leadership of the anti-terrorist operation displayed?
- Did the actual actions of the relevant officials correspond to the operational situation prevailing at the time of the combat mission?
- The actions (inaction) of which officials who planned and conducted the operation to defeat illegal armed groups (the enemy) are causally connected with the onset of serious consequences that led to the death of servicemen (employees) and other persons, loss of weapons and military equipment?
