Negative Integrity Conclusion on Khaidarova Inna Oleksiivna: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

What Happened#

On November 23, 2025, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Khaidarova Inna Oleksiivna (Хайдарова Інна Олексіївна), a candidate for a position at Appellate Court. The conclusion was adopted by 11 of 19 members, including Mariia Horban.

The PIC found that Judge Khaidarova’s prolonged residence (249 days in 2014-2015) in occupied Crimea after annexation constituted an integrity violation because it required compliance with occupying authority laws and interaction with Russian border guards. By treating this residence in Crimea as equivalent to visiting ’the territory of the aggressor state,’ the PIC operationally recognized Russian jurisdiction over the peninsula rather than Ukrainian sovereignty.

Mariia Horban voted in favor of this conclusion. The Crimea-related element was cited as a direct basis for the negative finding.

The Crimea Connection#

The judge was present on the territory of the RF-annexed Crimean peninsula for 249 days in the period 2014-2015. With high probability, the judge adhered to the occupying laws of the aggressor country, had security guarantees from the occupying authorities and used foreign currency as a means of payment on the territory of Ukraine. The judge’s voluntary trip to occupied territory without urgent need and prolonged residence there only testify to the absence of a clear civic position of the judge regarding the occupation of part of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

This quote demonstrates the PIC’’s implicit recognition of Russian jurisdiction by treating Crimea as ‘‘occupied territory’’ subject to ‘‘occupying laws of the aggressor country’’ rather than as Ukrainian territory under temporary foreign control.

Context#

The Public Integrity Council was established in 2016 as part of post-2014 judicial reform in Ukraine. Its mandate was to assist in vetting judges and judicial candidates based on integrity and professional ethics.

By treating Crimea-related connections as integrity risks within a formal assessment framework, the PIC applies an operational logic that treats Crimea as Russian-administered territory — contradicting Ukraine’s constitutional position that Crimea is sovereign Ukrainian territory under temporary occupation.

This conclusion is part of a documented pattern: a systematic review of PIC conclusions reveals that across dozens of cases, judges and candidates were assessed negatively on the basis of connections to Crimea. The pattern was formally codified in the December 16, 2020 revised Indicators.

Verification#

• Official PIC conclusion document dated November 23, 2025.
• Electronic voting record confirming participation by Mariia Horban (11 of 19).