How to ensure Oleksandr Horbunenko's personal participation in the defence

Anton Zhuravel, lawyer, defence counsel for Oleksandr Horbunenko Position on the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) hearings of 21 and 28 October 2026 On 28 October the High Anti-Corruption Court refused my motion to apply to the competent authorities of the United States in order to arrange the remote participation of Oleksandr Horbunenko in the Sennychenko case. At the same time, the court stated that it would take into account the documents confirming his presence in an ICE facility in connection with immigration proceedings since 18 June 2026. As defence counsel, I consider that after this decision the main practical question remains unresolved: how can my client personally take part in the court proceedings if he has no ability to arrange communication from the detention facility on his own? What exactly I asked the court for I asked the court to ensure official interaction with the competent authorities of the United States: to obtain the necessary permits, to agree the procedure for the video link, and to provide premises, equipment, technical support and establishment of the participant's identity. The supplements also proposed that, if this method proved impossible, an explanation of the reasons and, where possible, a proposal for another permissible mechanism be obtained. During the hearing the court read out the statement of the American lawyer that Horbunenko cannot leave the facility on his own, determine the time and manner of connecting, obtain equipment or freely use his own technical devices. I refer to this statement as a defence document whose content was brought to the attention of the court. [1] Prosecutor Yurii Luchkiv objected to the motion and stated that Horbunenko must resolve the question of whether he can participate on his own. At the same time, he stated his intention to file a motion concerning special court proceedings. [2] The court explained the refusal on the ground that the proposed form of international legal assistance is not provided for by the provisions of legislation and of the treaty between Ukraine and the United States that it applied. The court also stated that the documents on Horbunenko's detention would be taken into account, in particular if a motion for special proceedings is received. [3] Why I disagree with this approach In my view, permission to participate remotely must be accompanied by an assessment of whether the person can actually make use of it. In the case of my client, this concerns specific restrictions in the detention facility and the need for assistance from its administration. When announcing the decision, the court cited the provisions of the treaty on other forms of assistance not prohibited by the legislation of the requested state. I therefore believe that a refusal based on the absence of a separately named form of video participation requires additional legal justification. This does not mean that the American authorities are obliged to agree to any request. But the question of the permissibility of specific actions and the conditions for carrying them out must be properly assessed. I also disagree with reducing the request to obtaining advice on technical conditions: the motion contained requests for permits, premises, equipment and practical assistance. It was precisely this content that the court read out during the examination of the documents. [1; 3] What current information is missing from the prosecution A separate set of questions arose after the explanations given by prosecutor Alina Zhovnytska on 21 October. She reported Horbunenko's migration detention and named the date of the next American hearing. When the court asked her to clarify, she referred, in particular, to defence materials, internal communications and SMS messages. [4] The court placed on the prosecutor the obligation to provide the documents held by the prosecution on Horbunenko's whereabouts in the United States, in order to establish what exactly confirms the information reported. [5] On 28 October the prosecutor presented a NABU alert, consular materials and Interpol information. However, when judge Iryna Teslenko asked for clarification regarding official information on the current whereabouts and detention of the accused, Luchkiv replied that such information is not in the materials of the criminal proceedings. [6] I do not believe that the question can be exhausted by the mere fact that documents on previous consular applications and on the wanted status were added to the file. They do not disclose the source of the current reports about the present detention and the date of the American hearing. At the same time, I do not claim that the prosecutor should have obtained documents that he did not have: it is necessary to check whether the available materials were submitted in full and to explain the origin of the information reported. When one of the accused asked directly about compliance with the earlier requirement, the presiding judge explained the procedure for access to the materials added to the file, but did not directly assess whether the requirement had been met in full. [7] What requires a procedural resolution I consider it necessary to specify what information the prosecutor's office obtained from defence documents and what independently of them; to establish the source, time of receipt and content of the messages insofar as they concern Horbunenko; to provide the relevant available materials to the extent permitted by law; and to give a reasoned assessment of compliance with the requirement of 21 October. The reference to SMS messages does not in itself prove the unlawful obtaining or disclosure of information. I draw no such conclusion before the source, the content and the legal grounds of any possible transfer have been checked. If the documents contain protected information from the American proceedings or personal data, the procedure for access and the limits of disclosure must be determined taking these restrictions into account. My position is that, when deciding the questions of personal participation and possible special proceedings, it is necessary to assess the current situation of the accused and the real possibilities of communication. The defence's request to arrange participation must receive an answer as to a practically feasible way of exercising this right. Sources [1] HACC, 28.10.2026, 00:40:57 onwards — examination of the supplements and the statement of the American lawyer. https://www.youtube.com/live/HZoZQ4SZyBA?t=2457s [2] Ibid., 00:48:18 — position of the prosecutor. https://www.youtube.com/live/HZoZQ4SZyBA?t=2898s [3] Ibid., 00:53:43–01:00:07 — announcement of the decision. https://www.youtube.com/live/HZoZQ4SZyBA?t=3223s [4] HACC, 21.10.2026, 00:34:36; 01:02:36–01:04:34. https://www.youtube.com/live/QZYUQRm3dfE?t=2076s [5] Ibid., 01:10:51 — requirement to provide the available documents. https://www.youtube.com/live/QZYUQRm3dfE?t=4251s [6] HACC, 28.10.2026, 00:15:32–00:18:13; 00:26:36–00:27:16. https://www.youtube.com/live/HZoZQ4SZyBA?t=932s [7] Ibid., 01:00:32–01:02:13. https://www.youtube.com/live/HZoZQ4SZyBA?t=3632s. The timecodes are given according to the transcripts of the broadcasts; for verbatim quotation, the official technical recording takes precedence.