official, abuse of authority by a military official 
or official powers, negligent attitude to military 
service,  inaction  of  the  military  authorities, 
violation of the rules of military duty, violation 
of  the rules  of border  service,  violation of  the 
rules of handling weapons, as well as substances 
and objects that pose an increased danger to the 
environment, drinking alcoholic and low-alcohol 
beverages or use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic 
substances or  their analogues (Law of  Ukraine 
No. 8073-X, 1984). 
 
At  the same time, administrative  responsibility 
has not been introduced for some actions. There 
is no rule that would provide for responsibility 
for curfew violations. Because of this, the police 
draw up a report on the person who violated the 
curfew  according  to  Art.  185  of  the  Code  of 
Ukraine on administrative offenses. It provides 
for  liability  for  malicious  disobedience  to  the 
lawful  order  or  demand  of  a  police  officer,  a 
member of a public formation for the protection 
of public order and the state border, a military 
serviceman).  We  believe  that  this  practice  is 
inadmissible,  because  in  fact  it  contradicts  the 
tasks of  proceedings in cases of  administrative 
offenses, in particular, regarding the resolution of 
each case in exact accordance with the law (Law 
of Ukraine No. 8073-X, 1984). Also, there is no 
separate  rule  that  would  establish  a  person's 
responsibility  for  violating  the  special  light 
masking regime and other actions. In this regard, 
it  should  be  emphasized  that  there  are  no 
provisions in the current legislation that would 
provide for responsibility for individual actions 
that  may  lead  to  negative  consequences  and, 
under  certain  conditions,  even  to  the  death  of 
people. We believe that this practice should be 
eradicated  and  requires  the  introduction  of 
appropriate mechanisms of legal regulation. 
 
As  for  the  changes  in  criminal  procedural 
legislation, they are more significant. Thus, it is 
determined that the prosecutor is prohibited from 
entrusting  the  implementation  of  a  pre-trial 
investigation  of  a  criminal  offense  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption 
Bureau  of  Ukraine  to  another  pre-trial 
investigation  body.  At  the  same  time,  this 
provision was clarified by the wording: "except 
for the cases of ordering a pre-trial investigation 
under  martial  law".  Also,  the  prosecutor  is 
prohibited from entrusting the implementation of 
a  pre-trial  investigation  of  a  criminal  offense 
committed  by  a people's  deputy  of  Ukraine to 
other pre-trial investigation bodies, except for the 
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and 
the  central  apparatus  of  the  State  Bureau  of 
Investigation  in  accordance  with  their 
jurisdiction, defined by the Criminal Procedure 
Code of Ukraine (Law of Ukraine No. 4651-VI, 
2012). 
 
The next innovation that applies during martial 
law is the possibility of entering into the Unified 
Register of  Pretrial Investigations decisions on 
the  initiation  of  criminal  proceedings  after  a 
certain period of time, in particular, at the first 
opportunity. This is due to the impossibility of 
access  of  the  investigator,  inquirer,  and 
prosecutor  to  the  Unified  Register  of  Pretrial 
Investigations, which quite often happens in the 
territories  where  active  hostilities  are  taking 
place. 
 
The list of powers during martial law of the head 
of  the  prosecutor's  office  at  the request  of  the 
prosecutor  or  an  investigator  agreed  with  the 
prosecutor has been expanded. Among them, in 
particular: making a decision on the pretext of a 
person,  temporary  access  to  things  and 
documents,  seizure  of  property,  permission  to 
detain  for  the  purpose  of  pretext,  a  request  to 
conduct a search in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 
233 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, 
search,  obtaining  samples  for  examination, 
conducting secret investigative (search) actions, 
extending the period of pre-trial investigation, as 
well  as  powers to  choose  preventive  measures 
(Law  of  Ukraine  No.  4651-VI,  2012).  This 
happens in case of impossibility of execution of 
such powers by the investigating judge. 
 
As  for  preventive  measures,  the  procedure  for 
selecting them as suspects is provided for in Art. 
109-115, 121, 127,  146, 146-1,  147, 152, 153, 
185,  186,  187,  189-191,  201,  258-258-5,  260-
263-1,  294,  348,  349,  365,  377-379,  402-444 
Criminal  Code  of  Ukraine  (Law  of  Ukraine 
No. 2341-III, 2001). The term of the preventive 
measure should not exceed 30 days. In addition, 
in exceptional cases, also in the commission of 
other serious and especially serious crimes, if the 
delay in choosing a preventive measure can lead 
to the loss of traces of a criminal offense or the 
escape of a person suspected of committing such 
crimes. These powers are exercised taking into 
account the  requirements of  Chapter  37 of  the 
Criminal  Procedure  Code  of  Ukraine  (Law  of 
Ukraine No. 4651-VI, 2012), that is, the special 
procedure for criminal proceedings. 
 
The legislator established that in the case of the 
objective  impossibility  of  filing  an  indictment 
with  the  court,  the  term  of  the  pre-trial 
investigation  is  suspended  and  subject  to 
renewal, if the grounds for suspension no longer 
exist. In our opinion, the mechanism of appeal