Archives play a critical role in the process of transitional justice, as they not only preserve the memory of the past but also shape the future trajectory of democratic development. They serve as "witnesses of history," helping to uncover the truth about the crimes of totalitarian regimes, ensure justice for victims, and build a collective social memory. In this expert piece for the “Yuridicheskaya Gazeta,” Inna Linyova, Director of the UBA Human Rights Institute, explores the vital role and value of archives.

In his influential work "Archive Fever" (1996, p. 4), Jacques Derrida famously stated, "There is no political power without control of the archives." I believe he was absolutely right. Archives are not merely the "repositories" of political power; they reflect the depth of democracy and the strength of the rule of law within a nation. As Derrida himself noted, "Effective democratization can always be measured by this essential criterion: participation in the archive, access to it, its composition, and its interpretation" (Derrida, 1996, p. 4).

This idea is echoed by M. Paliienko, who argues that the right of every individual to access accurate information about their country’s history is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic state. At the same time, archives can also serve as an "arsenal of power" (d'arsenal de l'autorité) for totalitarian regimes (Paliienko, 2019, p. 21).

It is not surprising that the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, and vice versa, inevitably affects the degree of openness or secrecy of archives. This is clearly reflected in the different paths taken by Ukraine and Russia. In Ukraine, the journey has been one of nascent democracy evolving through multiple revolutions and war, while in Russia, the trajectory has moved from a brief democratic experiment following the collapse of the Soviet Union to an increasingly consolidated authoritarian regime.

The liberalization of Soviet archives, particularly those of the political police, began in the 1980s and 1990s. After the collapse of the USSR, this process continued in Ukraine, reaching its peak after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. In this respect, Ukraine drew inspiration from the experiences of the Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – which provided unrestricted public access to all Soviet-era documents, including those of the Communist Party and the KGB (Kramer, 2012).

A. Kozyrska has analyzed how, in the first decades of Ukrainian independence (with the exception of the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko from 2005 to 2010), the state took an inclusive approach to the Soviet past. Soviet symbols and monuments coexisted alongside pro-Ukrainian ones, and the "politics of memory" was largely left to the discretion of local authorities, leading to a plurality of views on the role of the Soviet past in Ukrainian history. However, this trend shifted dramatically in 2014, following the Revolution of Dignity, laying the foundation for a "radical decommunization" policy (Kozyrska, 2016, p. 131).

In 2015, the Ukrainian Parliament passed four key "decommunization laws," developed by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. These include:

• Law of Ukraine "On the Condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes in Ukraine and the Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbols" No. 317-VIII of April 9, 2015;

• Law of Ukraine "On the Legal Status and Honoring the Memory of Fighters for Ukraine’s Independence in the 20th Century" No. 314-VIII of April 9, 2015;

• Law of Ukraine "On the Commemoration of the Victory over Nazism in World War II, 1939-1945" No. 315-VIII of April 9, 2015;

• Law of Ukraine "On Access to Archives of Repressive Bodies of the Communist Totalitarian Regime of 1917-1991" No. 316-VIII of April 9, 2015.

The first of these laws, Law No. 317-VIII, was adopted "to prevent the recurrence of crimes of the communist and national socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes [and] any discrimination on national, social, class, ethnic, racial, or other grounds in the future..." (Preamble). Among other provisions, Article 2 explicitly recognizes the communist totalitarian regime in Ukraine from 1917 to 1991 as criminal, stating that it pursued a policy of state terror resulting in numerous human rights violations. Article 5, Paragraph 4 of this law explicitly prohibits the classification of archival documents, including those of former Soviet state security agencies, related to any crimes committed by these bodies.

Despite this significant progress, practical challenges remain. The outbreak of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine in 2022 has led to the complete destruction of some archives (e.g., the archive of the Territorial Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Chernihiv region), the occupation of significant parts of Ukrainian territory, and the evacuation of large volumes of archival materials. These challenges are further compounded by chronic underfunding, a shortage of qualified personnel, and inadequate facilities. At the same time, the war and previous COVID-19 lockdown restrictions have accelerated the digitization of Ukrainian archives with support from foreign governments and NGOs (Matyash, 2022, pp. 151-160).

While Ukraine has made significant strides in opening its archives, Russia has taken the opposite path, moving towards tighter control and secrecy. For instance, in 2014, Russia’s Interdepartmental Commission for the Protection of State Secrets decided that Soviet security service documents would remain classified until 2044. This approach contrasts sharply with Ukraine’s push for transparency and reflects a broader effort by the Russian government to maintain tight control over historical narratives (Kramer, 2012).

As both Ukraine and Russia continue to grapple with their pasts, the stark contrast in their approaches to archives highlights the crucial role that transparency and historical accountability play in building stable, democratic societies. As Bertkovskyi noted, the state’s approach to archives is an integral part of a broader strategy for managing social development, underscoring the long-term importance of open access to historical documents as a foundation for democratic governance (Bertkovskyi, cited in Matyash, 2022, p. 133).