Targeting NABU detectives over their origins or relatives in occupied territories is discriminatory, ZMINA human rights advocate warns
On the evening of March 15, officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) detained a NABU detective at a checkpoint near the entrance to Sumy while he was on duty conducting an investigation. The alleged reason for the detention was that the detective’s parents reside in territories that are temporarily occupied.
Alyona Lunyova, Advocacy Director at the ZMINA Human Rights Centre, emphasized that targeting individuals based on their origins in occupied territories or family ties there is unacceptable and constitutes a discriminatory practice.
Alyona LunyovaAccording to reports from the Security Service of Ukraine, the man originates from a territory currently under temporary occupation; he reportedly could not state his place of employment and presented only the “Diia” app to verify his identity. During a check of his contacts, law enforcement also discovered several Russian phone numbers.
Lunyova emphasized that the state often perceives individuals from occupied territories, or those with relatives there, as an additional security risk. Consequently, they may be suspected of disloyalty or even treason solely for maintaining contact with loved ones still under occupation. In her view, this approach contradicts the state’s publicly declared policy.
“No one is saying that people from occupied territories pose a threat. We also do not see a public perception that residents of occupied territories are a risk to national security. Therefore, SSU actions justified solely by a person’s origin or the presence of relatives there are unacceptable. Such an approach demonstrates a discriminatory attitude by the state based on origin toward people who live in or come from occupied territories,” the human rights defender underscored.
Lunyova emphasized that those living in Russian-occupied territories are themselves victims of the occupation, and the Russian Federation, as the aggressor state, bears full responsibility. Therefore, it is unacceptable to persecute or further restrict the rights of individuals solely because they originate from occupied territories or maintain contact with relatives there.
The Advocacy Director also noted that the SSU had previously proposed initiatives involving enhanced vetting of individuals from occupied territories. Specifically, she referred to Draft Law No. 14230 concerning the use of polygraph tests for those who have left occupied areas and wish to work in the civil service or local government. These checks were intended to investigate, among other things, the circumstances under which Russian passports were obtained.
According to the human rights defender Alyona Lunyova, such proposals are also discriminatory and reflect a disproportionate attitude toward people from occupied territories. She underscored that the mere fact of birth, residence, or contact within an occupied territory cannot serve as grounds for detention or any form of discrimination.
To provide background, Anastasiia Radina, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, stated that Ukraine’s key anti-corruption institutions have been operating under systemic pressure from other law enforcement agencies for years.
You may also want to read: Systemic pressure on the anti-corruption ecosystem: challenges facing NABU, activists, and the media in 2025
Radina compared the work of anti-corruption bodies — primarily the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — to a “medieval castle” situated in an open territory, constantly subjected to “raids” by its neighbors.
During a meeting of the Anti-Corruption Committee, NABU Director Semen Kryvonos revealed that officials from several law enforcement agencies — including the SSU, the State Bureau of Investigation, National Police, and the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) — had searched the court registry for warrants related to the “Midas” case, which is currently being investigated by NABU and SAPO.
In parallel, the movements of official Bureau vehicles were tracked through the “Safe City” surveillance system. Kryvonos explained that while some vehicles are assigned to specific officials, others belong to units with rotating crews. By knowing a vehicle’s license plate, the system can track its route, effectively revealing where the Bureau is conducting operational activities.
He suggested that such monitoring could expose the detectives’ activities to potential persons of interest in their cases. At the same time, the Director emphasized that the investigation is still determining whether these searches were conducted lawfully.
Follow ZMINA on X and LinkedIn for daily human rights coverage from Ukraine – we invite you to share your feedback on what you’d like to see more of in our survey here.
