{"id":22274,"date":"2025-01-22T14:02:31","date_gmt":"2025-01-22T12:02:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/?p=22274"},"modified":"2026-01-23T14:04:49","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T12:04:49","slug":"a-treacherous-anachronism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/","title":{"rendered":"A Treacherous Anachronism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Opanas Karlin<\/em><\/strong>
\nPartner, ESQUIRES<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The public was stirred by the news that the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) had notified a sitting judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv of suspicion of high treason for issuing a \u201cdecision in the interests of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,\u201d under which funds were recovered from Ukraine. It indeed sounds horrifying.<\/p>\n

Let us try to examine, in the broadest terms, whether this is hype or treason.<\/p>\n

The key facts concern the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. a) the timing of the court decision \u2013 September 2012 (more than 12 years ago);<\/li>\n
  2. b) finality \u2013 the decision was upheld by the appellate and cassation courts (thus entered into legal force);<\/li>\n
  3. c) the amount recovered \u2013 only slightly more than 1% was actually recovered (UAH 38.6 million of the UAH 3.1 billion claimed);<\/li>\n
  4. d) reversal \u2013 in March 2014 the decision was reviewed due to newly discovered circumstances (i.e., circumstances unknown to the court during the initial proceedings); the claim was fully dismissed (the new decision entered into legal force); the court ordered reversal of execution and issued a writ for recovery of UAH 38.6 million from the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation;<\/li>\n
  5. e) since 2014 the decision ordering recovery from the Russian Ministry of Defence has not been enforced, and the effectiveness of the government’s actions to enforce it remains debatable.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The judge issued a public statement countering the allegations made by the prosecutor and the SBI. However, this article aims to address the matter from a broader perspective.<\/p>\n

    Who Judges the Judges?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The essence of the suspicion, from its \u201cobjective side,\u201d comes down to the judge\u2019s adjudication of a commercial dispute and the issuance of a judicial decision with which law enforcement authorities disagree.<\/p>\n

    Is such a suspicion compatible with the principles of judicial independence and the binding force of judicial decisions?<\/p>\n

    The Recommendation CM\/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe states that judges are not obliged to explain the reasoning behind their decisions, judicial decisions cannot be reviewed outside the appellate procedures established by law, and the executive and legislative branches must refrain from criticizing them (\u00a715, \u00a716, \u00a718 of the Appendix). Similar provisions appear in the Opinions of the Consultative Council of European Judges (No. 11 (2008), No. 3 (2002)).<\/p>\n

    For some time, whether law enforcement agencies may evaluate or question a judicial decision (especially one that has entered into force) remained a matter of debate. The issue was ultimately resolved by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its decision of 11 June 2020 No. 7-r\/2020, which reviewed the constitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code (criminal liability for rendering a knowingly unjust judgment).<\/p>\n

    According to the Court, the wording of Article 375 allowed abuse by investigative bodies, enabling them to prosecute a judge merely because, in the subjective opinion of an investigator, prosecutor, or any other person, a judicial decision is \u201cunlawful\u201d (particularly when they disagree with it).<\/p>\n

    Referencing Article 126 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Venice Commission\u2019s 2010 Report on judicial independence, the Court emphasized that \u201ca final judicial decision cannot be reviewed except in cases established by procedural law, which precludes an investigator or prosecutor from assessing such a decision when undertaking actions that may result in criminal prosecution of a judge.\u201d<\/p>\n

    These conclusions do not<\/strong> mean that judges enjoy impunity: law enforcement may prosecute bribery, unlawful interference, or even treason. There is only one \u201ctaboo\u201d: the prosecution cannot be based on their own \u201cmore expert\u201d evaluation of whether a judicial decision was lawful.<\/p>\n

    The Elephant in the Room<\/strong><\/p>\n

    According to the publicly available SBI materials, the suspicion is based precisely on law enforcement\u2019s conclusions regarding the unlawfulness of the decision. The alleged degree and \u201cobviousness\u201d of factual and legal distortions within the decision are presented as evidence against the judge.<\/p>\n

    Meanwhile, circumstances that would typically form the basis of such a criminal accusation\u2014collusion, communication with \u201corganisers\u201d (Yanukovych and Azarov)\u2014are not established, but merely \u201creasonably assumed,\u201d derived from the supposed illegality of the decision itself. The subsequent actions of the appellate and cassation judges, who upheld the decision and were not deemed accomplices, remain unexplained. Law enforcement resolves this by sophistry: if the decision was \u201cobviously unlawful,\u201d someone must have influenced them.<\/p>\n

    Thus, typical of \u201chigh-profile\u201d cases, everything is done inversely:<\/p>\n

    \u2013 the circumstances within law enforcement\u2019s direct competence (e.g., documenting collusion, communications, awareness of the alleged scheme) are not established and rest on assumptions,<\/p>\n

    \u2013 while matters outside<\/strong> their competence\u2014the legal analysis of a judicial decision\u2014form the basis of the accusation.<\/p>\n

    Notably, it took 12 years to perform this \u201canalysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Completely overlooked is the fact that the decision was reviewed by competent bodies (appellate and cassation courts), which upheld it as lawful and reasoned.<\/p>\n

    A Turn in the Wrong Direction<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In March 2014, the disputed decision was reviewed due to newly discovered circumstances, reversed, and a new decision issued fully dismissing the claim. The same judgment ordered reversal of execution and recovery of UAH 38.6 million from the Russian Ministry of Defence into the Ukrainian state budget. A writ of execution was issued.<\/p>\n

    The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine then only needed to submit the writ for enforcement. For this, a Russian court had to recognise the Ukrainian judgment.<\/p>\n

    In October 2015, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court refused to recognise and enforce the judgment of the Commercial Court of Kyiv. The Cabinet missed the deadline to appeal, abandoned enforcement efforts for eight years, and during this period managed to lose both the writ and the case file.<\/p>\n

    In March 2023, the commercial court restored the government\u2019s deadline and issued a duplicate writ. The Cabinet announced the possibility of recovering UAH 38.6 million from the Russian Ministry of Defence, including from frozen Russian assets abroad. This was seen as a long-awaited chance to set a precedent for recovery against frozen Russian assets in the West.<\/p>\n

    Subversive Activity<\/strong><\/p>\n

    (This section is purely legal in nature; non-lawyers may wish to skip it.)<\/em><\/p>\n

    The overarching object of high treason is Ukraine\u2019s national security; the direct object consists of sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability, defence capability, and state, economic, and information security.<\/p>\n

    Economic security is indeed included. However, not every action that results in budget expenditures constitutes an encroachment upon economic security. Nor does every action detrimental to economic security satisfy the elements of this crime.<\/p>\n

    First<\/strong>, for budgetary expenditures to threaten economic security, they must reach strategic magnitude<\/strong>, capable of undermining the national economy on a macroeconomic scale (e.g., default, cessation of social payments). This is inherently evaluative.<\/p>\n

    Second<\/strong>, the objective manifestation<\/strong> of the act is essential.<\/p>\n

    High treason has only three forms:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. a) siding with the enemy during armed conflict;<\/li>\n
    2. b) espionage;<\/li>\n
    3. c) providing assistance to a foreign state, organisation, or their representatives in conducting subversive activities<\/strong> against Ukraine.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Thus, interpretation of \u201csubversive activities\u201d\u2014a term undefined in Ukrainian law\u2014becomes crucial.<\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court has held that \u201cforms of subversive activity may vary,\u201d meaning that orientation, not form, matters (e.g., ruling of 27.10.2021, case No. 759\/7443\/17).<\/p>\n

      By reference to UN General Assembly Declarations No. 36\/103 and No. 2131 (XX), the Court concludes that subversive activities are actions of foreign actors aimed at undermining the foundations of Ukraine\u2019s national security and causing significant harm to sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability, defence capability, or economic or information security (e.g., rulings of 06.12.2021 and 21.12.2022).<\/p>\n

      However, these Declarations do not define subversive activities nor distinguish them from other hostile external influences such as \u201cinterference.\u201d Their descriptions apply broadly to actions aimed at depriving a state of its autonomy in determining its political or economic system.<\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court\u2019s approach\u2014treating any action that aims to harm security as \u201csubversive\u201d\u2014does not fully correspond to the Declarations nor to the logic of Article 111 of the Criminal Code, which clearly distinguishes the purpose<\/strong> of harmful conduct (the object) and its manifestation<\/strong> (the objective element). Otherwise, the definition becomes circular and fails to overcome the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n

      A more precise approach might analyse legislation on national security risks. For example, the now-repealed Law \u201cOn the Foundations of National Security of Ukraine\u201d (2003\u20132018) identified \u201cintelligence and subversive activities of foreign special services\u201d as a key threat. Current legislation similarly assigns the Security Service of Ukraine responsibility for countering intelligence and subversive activities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      This narrows the scope of what may constitute subversive activity\u2014but would require the SBI to prove facts they evidently do not possess.<\/p>\n

      The Treacherous Chronos<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The judge is accused of taking an action (issuing a decision) harmful to Ukraine\u2019s economic security by assisting Russia in conducting subversive activities through alleged deprivation of funding of \u201cone of the spheres of public life.\u201d The sphere is unspecified.<\/p>\n

      From a retrospective standpoint\u2014after 2014 and 2022\u2014the human mind tends to infer causation where none existed. The SBI\u2019s statement claims: \u201cAccording to the investigation, these funds were used to finance the so\u2011called \u2018special military operation\u2019.\u201d Imagining that Russia preserved this relatively small amount for nine years, only to use it in 2022, strains credulity.<\/p>\n

      In 2012, Ukraine\u2019s leadership felt secure in power, and society largely did not view Russia as an enemy. A lawsuit in favour of a Russian state body did not appear particularly scandalous.<\/p>\n

      The absence of aggression or evidence of plans for aggression at that time requires viewing the case in isolation. This creates reasonable doubt that a single judicial decision ordering recovery of a relatively small amount (in the context of the state budget) could jeopardise Ukraine\u2019s economic security.<\/p>\n

      One may feel that the article is overly sympathetic to the judge. This is merely the inevitable consequence of professional deformation of an advocate, combined with a \u201cnostalgia for the future\u201d of Ukrainian justice, free from the traits of \u201crevolutionary expediency\u201d and the ineptitude of law enforcement.<\/p>\n

      Source: Korrespondent<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Opanas Karlin Partner, ESQUIRES The public was stirred by the news that the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) had notified a sitting judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv of suspicion of high treason for issuing a \u201cdecision in the interests of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,\u201d under which funds were recovered […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22275,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nA Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Opanas Karlin Partner, ESQUIRES The public was stirred by the news that the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) had notified a sitting judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv of suspicion of high treason for issuing a \u201cdecision in the interests of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,\u201d under which funds were recovered […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Esquires\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/esquires.legal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Zobrazhennya_anahronizm-z-logo-AO.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Khrystyna Kruk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Opanas Karlin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Esquires\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/esquireslawfirm\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UC_8hJoe4IKEG1Nsv9_kk0wQ\/videos\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/esquires.legal\/\"],\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/esquires-logo-black.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/esquires-logo-black.svg\",\"width\":\"1024\",\"height\":\"1024\",\"caption\":\"Esquires\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/\",\"name\":\"Esquires\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\",\"name\":\"A Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Treacherous Anachronism\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Khrystyna Kruk\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/beadd8bdcb3e4482209cbe906521f4cc\"},\"headline\":\"A Treacherous Anachronism\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/\"},\"wordCount\":1614,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Publications\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/beadd8bdcb3e4482209cbe906521f4cc\",\"name\":\"Khrystyna Kruk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ea71d584a22866673b43cff42e3b56f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ea71d584a22866673b43cff42e3b56f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Khrystyna Kruk\"},\"description\":\"\u0444\u0438\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0430\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires","og_description":"Opanas Karlin Partner, ESQUIRES The public was stirred by the news that the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) had notified a sitting judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv of suspicion of high treason for issuing a \u201cdecision in the interests of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,\u201d under which funds were recovered […]","og_url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/","og_site_name":"Esquires","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/esquires.legal\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":768,"height":640,"url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Zobrazhennya_anahronizm-z-logo-AO.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Khrystyna Kruk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Opanas Karlin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization","name":"Esquires","url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/esquireslawfirm\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UC_8hJoe4IKEG1Nsv9_kk0wQ\/videos","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/esquires.legal\/"],"logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/esquires-logo-black.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/esquires-logo-black.svg","width":"1024","height":"1024","caption":"Esquires"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#website","url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/","name":"Esquires","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/","url":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/","name":"A Treacherous Anachronism - Esquires","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Treacherous Anachronism"}]},{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/"},"author":{"name":"Khrystyna Kruk","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/beadd8bdcb3e4482209cbe906521f4cc"},"headline":"A Treacherous Anachronism","datePublished":"2025-01-22T12:02:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-23T12:04:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/"},"wordCount":1614,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Publications"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/a-treacherous-anachronism\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/beadd8bdcb3e4482209cbe906521f4cc","name":"Khrystyna Kruk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ea71d584a22866673b43cff42e3b56f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ea71d584a22866673b43cff42e3b56f6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Khrystyna Kruk"},"description":"\u0444\u0438\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0438\u0430"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22274"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22274"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22274\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22278,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22274\/revisions\/22278"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22275"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esquires.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}