Menu
Social media
Sections
31 July 2026, 19:31
Those accused of Handziuk's murder may avoid punishment because of the statute of limitations
Ця стаття також доступна українською0
Kateryna Handziuk. PHOTO: glavcom.ua
The case involving the attack on Kherson activist Kateryna Handziuk is at risk because the new panel of judges has not scheduled a hearing. Due to the slow pace of the judicial system, the proceedings have been delayed, meaning the defendants may avoid punishment because the statute of limitations has expired.
This was reported on social media by the civic initiative “Who Ordered the Attack on Kateryna Handziuk.”
Representatives of the initiative group wrote that the previous panel was dissolved due to a judge’s resignation. A new panel was formed on July 3. It consists of Judges I. M. Gorb, R. M. Ignatov, and O. V. Zhuk. As of July 31, the new panel of judges had not scheduled a new hearing in the case of Kateryna Handziuk’s murder.The statute of limitations expires in two years, on July 31, 2028.
Kateryna Handziuk is a Ukrainian civic andpolitical activist, investigative journalist, and advisor to the mayor of Kherson. She systematically exposed corruption schemes involving local officials, pro-Russian forces, and abuses within law enforcement agencies in southern Ukraine. On July 31, 2018, Kateryna was attacked near her home in Kherson and doused with concentrated sulfuric acid. She died in the hospital on November 4, 2018, at the age of 33, as a result of her injuries.
In 2025, lawyers for the Handziuk family petitioned the court to expedite the appeal proceedings and establish a clear schedule for hearings. At the same time, the defense team for the accused opposed additional hearings, even though their clientsare willing to appear in court every day.
The law firm “Miller,” which is representing the family of the slain activist, noted that since the appeal began in November 2023, there have been numerous delays: one judge resigned, some motions filed by the defendants’ attorneys were submitted and withdrawn repeatedly, two attempts were made to release the defendants under the pretext of mobilization, and some of the witnesses in the first-instance trial were not even questioned.
As the firm noted, the slow review of forensic evidence is of particular concern—in four months, only five pieces of evidence were examined, which amounts to less than 20% of theevidence that the defendants’ own attorneys had requested be reviewed.
