Although the International Criminal Court opened an investigation when russia launched its aggression against Ukraine, numerous obstacles still hinder the restoration of justice and complicate the prosecution of those responsible. This study aimed to examine the challenges of harmonising domestic criminal and procedural law with international norms in the light of the social and legal repercussions of ratification. The research applied doctrinal, institutional and normative and legal analyses, together with comparative methods and case studies. The findings showed that, even though Ukraine’s journey towards full membership of the Rome Statute culminated in ratification, effective harmonisation of national legislation remains incomplete. One explanation identified is inaccuracy in the official Ukrainian translation of the Statute. Consequently, several issues have emerged, including a legislative narrowing of the recognised forms of genocide and the incorrect use of formulaic expressions such as “crimes against humaneness”, among others. The study identified specific features of detention and captivity arising from differing legal grounds that determine the status of such individuals under the norms of international humanitarian law. It was concluded that the proper regulated operation of Joint Investigation Teams is essential for the admissibility of collected evidence, particularly concerning the qualification of the individuals involved, whose professional competence is crucial. It was demonstrated that the use of open-source digital information in the documentation of international crimes must comply not only with the Berkeley Protocol but also with the requirements of jurisdictional and national admissibility. The practical value of this research lies in its potential to serve as a reference point for national legislators in the pursuit of thorough and proportionate legal harmonisation, as well as for courts and other law enforcement bodies
Basysta et al. (Sat,) studied this question.