Weekly analysis for 14 — 20 Jule

Decriminalizing Adult Pornography Without Decriminalizing Pornographic Deepfakes 

Event

On 14 July, the Verkhovna Rada adopted at first reading the Draft Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Strengthen Liability for the Production and Distribution of Child Pornography” (№ 15294 of 3 June 2026) (hereinafter, the Draft Law).

The Draft Law proposes to:

1) establish criminal liability for selling or otherwise distributing pornographic materials, pornographic films and videos, and pornographic computer programs to minors and children under the age of 14;

2) increase penalties for other offences involving child pornography, including obtaining access to, acquiring, possessing, importing, transporting, producing, selling, or distributing such material. It would also strengthen liability for organizing sexual performances involving minors or children under the age of 14, operating or maintaining brothels and procuring involving minors or children under the age of 14, as well as pimping or inducing a person into prostitution where the victim is a minor or child under the age of 14;

3) decriminalize the importation, possession, transportation, production, mailing or other transfer, sale, and distribution of pornographic materials, pornographic films and videos, and pornographic computer programs among consenting adults.

CPLR’s position

CPLR has consistently supported the decriminalization of pornography involving consenting adults. Such an approach aligns with international human rights standards and would allow law enforcement and prosecutorial resources to be focused on conduct that causes genuine harm, rather than on consensual activity between adults.

We have also drawn attention to Resolution 2412 (2021) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “Gender Aspects and Human Rights Implications of Pornography” of 26 November 2021, which calls on states to effectively safeguard personal data and images (para. 10.3.1) and to ensure that all persons depicted in pornographic content have provided their free and informed consent to its dissemination (para. 10.3.2), among other measures.

In this regard, it is a welcome development that the Draft Law proposes criminal liability for the production, sale, or distribution of pornographic material “without the consent of the person depicted therein”. This means that pornographic deepfakes and other forms of non-consensual intimate content would remain subject to criminal sanctions, while victims would have stronger legal mechanisms to protect their right to privacy. CPLR also welcomes the proposed amendment to part 3 of Article 301, which would criminalize coercing an adult to participate in the production of pornographic material. 

However, the Draft Law also contains several legal and drafting deficiencies that should be addressed before its second reading. In particular:

– unclear wording regarding the purpose of the offence (part 1 of Article 301). The provision establishes liability for “the sale or distribution of works, images, or other pornographic materials to a minor, or their production, possession, transportation, or other transfer for the same purpose”. However, the phrase “for the same purpose” is unclear, as the provision does not previously specify any purpose to which it refers. To ensure legal certainty, this wording should be replaced with “for the purpose of sale or distribution”. The same drafting issue is present in part 2 of Article 301;

– overlap between provisions concerning adult and child pornography. The Draft Law criminalizes the production, distribution, and sale of child pornography both under parts 1,2 and 4 of Article 301 and under parts 3, 4 and 5 of Article 301-1 of the Criminal Code. Such duplication may create difficulties in the legal classification of offences and the application of criminal law. To avoid overlapping provisions, parts 1 and 2 of Article 301 should clarify that they apply to pornographic materials “(excluding child pornography)”;

– incorrect use of the conjunction “and” in part 2 of Article 301. The provision establishes liability for “the sale and distribution of works, images, or other pornographic materials to a minor”. Unlike part 1 of Article 301, this wording implies that sale and distribution must occur simultaneously for criminal liability to arise. Since these are separate forms of conduct, the conjunction “and” should be replaced with “or”;

– inaccurate wording regarding distribution to minors. The wording used in parts 1 and 2 of Article 301 referring to the “distribution of works … to a minor” and “distribution of works … to a child under the age of 14” is inconsistent with the nature of distribution, which involves making content available to a group or an undefined number of persons rather than transferring it to a specific individual. The provisions should instead refer to “the sale to minors or distribution among minors of works, images, or other pornographic materials” and “the sale  or distribution of such materials among children under the age of 14”;

– wording of parts 3 and 4 of Article 301-1, referring to “coercing a minor to participate in the creation of child pornography” and “coercing a child under the age of 14 to participate in the creation of child pornography” is inconsistent with the preceding text of the first paragraphs of these provisions. This conduct should be regulated in a separate provision, as coercion into the creation of child pornography is a distinct form of conduct requiring separate legal treatment and appropriate aggravating circumstances.

Finally, attention should be drawn to the lack of proportionality in certain sanctions proposed by Draft Law. Although the repeated possession of child pornography or its possession by a group of persons acting upon prior agreement (part 4 of Article 301-1) undoubtedly constitutes socially dangerous conduct, the proposed penalty appears excessive when compared with the sanctions for substantially more serious offences. In particular, such conduct should not be punished as severely as coercing a child under the age of 14 to participate in the creation of child pornography, or more severely than intentional homicide (part 1 of Article 115 of the CC), war crimes (part 1 of Article 438), or ecocide (Article 441 of the CC).