The establishment of an institute for the rehabilitation of victims of political repression in the legal system of independent Ukraine

The article reveals the process of establishing the institution of rehabilitation of victims of political repressions in the legal system of independent Ukraine, reveals legislative gaps and outlines possible ways to eliminate them. It is noted that the rehabilitation of illegally convicted persons should be considered in two aspects: socio-political - as the restoration of historical justice, the return of a person’s good name, dignity and proper reputation in society, the public recognition of his innocence; legal – as the state’s activity regulated by law to review and cancel illegal charges, sentences of judicial and extrajudicial bodies of illegally convicted persons, the restoration of their honest name and all rights, the return of moral and material damage, the provision of proper legal assistance, etc. It is noted that it was the Law «On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repressions in Ukraine» that initiated the process of restoring historical justice and announced in this way the status of an independent state that condemns the crimes of the totalitarian regime. The law had significant political and legal significance, as it provided for the rehabilitation of victims of political repression for the “period after 1917 until the moment of its entry into force and extended to persons unjustly convicted during this time.” However, the 1991 Law, in addition to its incorrect title, also contained many substantive conflicts and gaps: not all categories of persons subject to rehabilitation were taken into account; it was unclear who could not be rehabilitated; it did not contain definitions of the basic concepts of the rehabilitation process. It is summarized that the Law of Ukraine “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Repressions of the Communist Totalitarian Regime of 1917–1991” adopted in 2018 is qualitatively different, both in its title, preamble, and content. Among its prerogatives and shortcomings: it contains definitions of basic terms, but, unfortunately, it lacks a definition of the basic concept of “rehabilitation”; the circle of persons recognized as rehabilitated has been significantly expanded, but there are no reservations regarding persons who are not subject to rehabilitation; the circle of persons who suffered from repressions has been outlined, but they are not subject to social assistance measures, etc. Despite some shortcomings, we can assert that the specified law and other regulatory legal acts to a certain extent currently provide proper legal regulation of the process of rehabilitation of persons who suffered repressions from the totalitarian communist regime.