Elmira Shahabudtdynova, journalist with the Zaporizhzhia-based news outlet 061.ua, says she has been unable to get comments on war crime trials from the oblast prosecutor’s office since the release of her news story reporting on the financial declarations filed by Zaporizhzhia oblast prosecutor Yaroslav Mykhalchuk.
Elmira Shahabudtdynova reported this to Natalia Vyhovska, the Institute of Mass Information’s regional representative in Zaporizhzhia oblast.
Shahabudtdynova says that it was 9 January, the day the news story was released, when the prosecutor’s office started turning down 061.ua’s requests for comments about probes into Russian war crimes, essentially preventing the news outlet from reporting socially significant information.
According to the journalist, the press service says disclosing this information would be “inappropriate”, even though they had been willing to comment on cases in similar sircumstances and on the same trial stages.
The regional IMI representative Natalia Vyhovska received an official comment by the Zaporizhzhia Oblast Prosecutor’s Office chief of information policy, Daryna Kulichenko.
It said that the press service of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast Prosecutor’s Office is committed to the principles of openness and transparency in interaction with the media and was always willing to cooperate in order to provide objective informtaion to the public.
“The temporary restriction of comments . . . is nothing other than a necessary procedural decision to ensure the legality and effectiveness of investigations and to respect the rights of all parties in the proceedings,” said Daryna Kulichenko’s official comment.
As soon as on 27 January, Elmira Shahabudtdynova told the regional IMI representative the prosecutor’s office had declined to give her a comment once again on 22 January.
According to IMI director Oksana Romaniuk, a refusal to comment does not constitute obstruction in and of itself.
“But a systematic, selective, and obviously retaliatory refusal after a critical news story is very risky behavior on the part of the state body, which may point to unlawful obstruction of legal reporting (Article 171 of the Criminal Code). After all, the journalist asked for comments on basic details that are part of an open trial, such as the bail sum mentioned in a news report by the Prosecutor’s Office or the general logic of case categorisation by the court. This is definitely has nothing to do with the secrecy of investigation, and therefore has to be communicated as usual. Cookie-cutter replies like ‘it is inappropriate’ or ‘this is not the right time,’ without specifics, which have occurred consistently, seem to be a disproportionate restriction,” the IMI director said.
IMI experts recorded 63 press freedom violations committed by Ukrainian citizens in 2025. Of these, 13 were cases of obstruction of reporting and 11 were instances of denial of access to public information. Most violations of journalists’ professional rights in 2025 were committed by individuals, local government bodies, officials, and law enforcers.