After the full text of the verdict was sealed in the register, the HACC published it with some parts redacted.

This is exactly the approach we at TI Ukraine called for: restricting access only to sensitive information and leaving the rest open. It is a welcome step that shows, at least in part, how the parties built the agreement and how the court assessed it.

What do we now know about the Pashynskyi plea agreement?

• How compensation was set. The parties agreed that the damage to the state amounted to UAH 817 million. Pashynskyi will pay UAH 600 million to the state budget in installments over 2.5 years. He will also transfer UAH 400 million to the Come Back Alive Foundation and UAH 100 million to the Sternenko Community Foundation for the needs of the Defense Forces. The rest of the damage is partly covered by the agreements of three other defendants, and Pashynskyi himself was partly released from civil liability. Seven people are involved in the case in total.

• How the sentence was determined. He received a UAH 425,000 fine under each article, Article 364(2) and Article 255(1) of the Criminal Code. In reviewing the agreement, the court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code and imposed a milder type of punishment. The reason is timing. Pashynskyi's abuse of office took place between March and June 2014, when Article 364 was not yet classed as a corruption offense, and the ban on applying Article 69 in corruption cases was introduced only in 2015. As an additional penalty for abuse of office, Pashynskyi received a UAH 17,000 fine and a one-year ban on holding office.

The plea verdict also describes Pashynskyi as a member, not an organizer, of the criminal organization. In the verdicts against his co-defendants, however, his role is likely described differently. We believe it is normal for the prosecution's position to evolve during an investigation. But the public needs to understand why it changed.

The published verdict does not reveal the substance of SAPO's cooperation with Pashynskyi, or whom exactly the defendant is exposing. That, too, is normal given the nature of this obligation.

Overall, the published extract makes clear the grounds for the sentence and the terms of the partial release from civil liability. Without an open text of the verdict, the public could not have seen any of this.